Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — GAME LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2.—(POWER OF POLICE TO ENTER ON LAND.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 9, leave out "This section shall not apply" and insert:
The power of entry conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercisable in relation".

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment was moved in another place by the Government in order to remove any question of doubt there might be about the powers conferred on police constables by Clause 1 of the Bill. With the approval of the Government and of Her Majesty the Queen, under the provisions of this Bill the police have power of entry on to Crown land.
Quite obviously, for security reasons, this power has not been extended to land occupied by the Service Departments, the Ministry of Aviation and the Atomic Energy Authority. The exclusion of the power of entry on to land owned by these Departments was provided in the original Bill in Clause 2 (3). But it so happens that as the Bill was originally drafted the definition of land in Clause 2 applies to Clause 1. It could be argued that Clause 2 (3), were it left as it now stands, as well as excluding the power of entry of a constable on to land held by the Admiralty, the Ministry of Aviation and

the Atomic Energy Authority would exclude the constable's power to arrest a poacher on that land. That was not the intention of the Bill, and the new drafting Amendments from another place clear up that misunderstanding.
I think the House will agree that it is quite essential that it should be put straight, because it is always open to a Government Department to invite a constable to patrol land. When doing that the constable should have the right to arrest a poacher if he saw one on the land. For a practical example we have only to look at the very good shoat which exists on Ministry of Aviation land at London Airport or the Stanford battle area in Norfolk or the fringe areas on Salisbury Plain.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 43, at end insert:
(5) In this section the word 'game' has the same meaning as in the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862.

Mr. Kimball: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, to take all the rest of these Amendments together, because the operative Amendment is that to line 27, on page 3, to leave out "rabbits"?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the hon. Member may discuss them all together.

Mr. Kimball: These are purely drafting Amendments. They do not alter the substance of the Bill one iota. The real trouble is that, as hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is extremely touchy about rabbits in these days. The civil servants at the Ministry were distressed to think that in this year 1960 we should perpetrate the anachronism of continuing to describe the rabbit as "game". Under the Pest Act, 1954, the rabbit is now described as a pest.
By means of these Amendments for once we have got the rabbits exactly where we want them. They are a pest from the point of view of the Ministry and of pest officers but it will be an offence to be caught on someone's land without permission with a gun in pursuit


of rabbits. If one is found doing that, for the purposes of this Bill the rabbit becomes "game", which seems a very satisfactory compromise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4.—(FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE.)

Lords Amendments made: In page 3, line 5, after "game" insert "or rabbits".

In line 8, after "game" insert "or rabbits".

In line 11, after "game" insert "or rabbit".

In line 14, after "game" insert "rabbit".

In line 27, leave out "rabbits".

Orders of the Day — NOISE ABATEMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(SAVING FOR BYELAWS.)

(1) Nothing in the provisions of section one or section two of this Act or section sixty-six of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937, shall affect any byelaw or power to make byelaws, and in particular no byelaw shall be held to be void for repugnancy on the ground that it prohibits or restricts in activity permitted by any of those provisions; and accordingly the said provisions shall not be included in the references to any enactment in subsection (4) of section two hundred and forty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1933, subsection (5) of section three hundred of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, and subsection (4) of section one hundred and forty-six of the Landon Government Act, 1939 (which provide that where, by or under any enactment, provision is made for the summary prevention and suppression of a nuisance in any area, the power conferred by those sections to make byelaws for the area with respect to that nuisance shall not be exercisable).
(2) In the said section sixty-six, paragraph (b) of subsection (4) (which provides that nothing in that section shall affect the power to make byelaws conferred by the said section one hundred and forty-six) and the word "or" immediately preceding that paragraph are hereby repealed.—[Mr. Speir.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.11 a.m.

Mr. Rupert Speir: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
During consideration of the Bill in Committee, several hon Members, including in particular the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), and the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), raised the question whether the Bill as drafted might either cause some of the existing byelaws to become void and nullified, or prevent additional byelaws being made. This is a very complex legal matter, but, as I said in Committee, it was never my intention that the Bill should in any way interfere with the right of local authorities to make byelaws. It was never the intention that this Bill should be a substitute for local byelaws, nor was it my desire in any way to interfere with them.
I am now advised that without the provisions and savings contained in this


new Clause, the adoption of which I now urge, there might be some doubt. This Clause ensures that the Bill shall not affect existing byelaws nor the powers of local authorities to make additional byelaws if they so desire. I understand that under Section 33 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, there will be an adequate safeguard to prevent any person from being in danger of being prosecuted and punished twice—for an offence under this Bill and an offence at the same time under an existing byelaw.
I hope the Clause will commend itself to the House.

Mr. James MacColl: I thank the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) for having gone to the trouble to produce this new Clause, which was not an easy thing to do. I do not think that any local authority officer trying rapidly to read the Bill would quite understand the result from a quick perusal of the new Clause. I am grateful to have the hon. Member's categorical statement that the new Clause will cover both existing byelaws—the one most likely to be concerned is the one known as the "noisy hawking" byelaw in London—and any further byelaws which may be put to the Secretary of State for approval.
I underline that second part of the statement. I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary about the "noisy hawking" byelaw because it was said in Committee that it all depended on the byelaw as to whether it would affect it or not. I asked specifically whether the "noisy hawking" byelaw would be affected. The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary I thought a little guarded. Referring to the new Clause, he said that the effect would be to save those byelaws where they have been adopted.
That would cover a number of authorities. I am grateful for the assurance of the hon. Member for Hexham that it will also cover any future bye-laws which local authorities want to adopt as well as the "noisy hawking" byelaw. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary could authoritatively confirm that it is the view of the Government that the new Clause will put local authorities which now want to adopt a byelaw in the same position as those which have already adopted one.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) for the trouble he has taken in dealing with a problem which was mentioned in Committee and which I think was a very real difficulty.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I am ready to give the assurance for which the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) asked.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(NOISE OR VIBRATION NUISANCE.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19 leave out "land" and to insert "premises".
This again is a point which was mentioned upstairs in Committee in discussing an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hexham. In the original form of the Bill, the word "premises" was used. The hon. Member removed the word "premises" and inserted the word "land". The point I tried to get cleared up, but have not yet succeeded in getting cleared up—that is why I am moving this Amendment—was that of a particular case where a number of people were occupying parts of a house. I can quite see that in the simplest case where there is a row of houses, particularly of owner-occupied houses, each squatting on a little piece of land, there is no doubt about who is occupying the land. It is occupied by the owner of the house. This difficulty would not arise in that case and house occupiers would be able to make a complaint under the Act.
The point which worries me a little is that where, particularly in London, there may be a four- or five-storey house which is leased by one person who is paying the ground rent for the whole house. He may be sub-letting each floor, or even each room, to separate persons who are occupying the premises as unfurnished or furnished premises. I want to be clear about who has the right to make a complaint. Is it each person who occupies a room in the house? Does it matter whether the room is furnished or


unfurnished? Is it only the person who occupies the whole house and pays the ground rent for the land as part of his leasehold interest in the premises?
I should have thought it would have been better to go back to the wording which, I believe, was used in the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937. The words in Section 66 of that Act are, "occupiers of premises". That has worked quite effectively in London for a considerable period. Therefore, I should have thought it would be wiser to stick to it in this case. The hon. Member for Hexham has adventurously wanted to alter it and to introduce the words "occupier of land", although I believe no one in the Committee was clear about the significance of the alteration and about who in fact would have the right to make a complaint.
I have no desire to press the matter if the answer to the questions I have put makes it clear that everybody who is living in a house, in the sense of renting a room or flat, has an equal right to make a complaint that he is being subjected to a nuisance from noise. I hope that the hon. Member will be able to assist us.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I support the Amendment. I can say with confidence that it will be urged that "land" includes "premises" and no doubt there are good legal arguments for saying that. But it does not alter the fact that in many legal contexts one finds the phrase "land or premises" or "land and premises". These prosecutions will come before a local magistrates' court and I should feel happier if the word "premises" were included. It may be unnecessary caution, but it could not do any harm and will not even be bad precedent in legal drafting, because it already occurs many times. I would prefer to see both words, so that the phrase was "land or premises". If the House were willing and if you would accept it, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could have a manuscript Amendment to that effect. I think that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) will have to insert the word "premises" in other places on page 2 in that case as consequential Amendments.

Mr. Weitzman: I support what has been said in favour of the Amendment.
It is true, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir), that in the interpretation land refers to matters of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), but there is a host of cases where the word "land" is interpreted in a different way. I am particularly troubled when I see the words in the Clause itself:
each of whom is the occupier of land and is in that capacity aggrieved by the nuisance?'
When the matter is heard by magistrates, all sorts of legal arguments might be adduced to show that the occupier of a flat, for instance, was not the occupier of land and it would do no harm to insert the words "premises".
I am fortified in that argument because I notice that the hon. Member for Hexham has altered the words of other Acts which deal with matters of this kind. In the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937, the words used were
householders or occupiers of premises.
while in Section 99 of the Public Health Act, 1936, the expression is that a complaint can be made to Justices of the peace
by any person aggrieved by the nuisance.
It looks as though we are cutting down the matter and I do not think that we should cut it down too far.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I support the Amendment and reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, that it is a great pity that we cannot say "land or premises". There would then be no doubt whatever of the intention. I support the Amendment in every possible way.

Major W. Hicks Beach: There is an easy commonsense solution to this problem, which is to insert the words "or premises". As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, these matters will come before magistrates' courts and I can see no objection to adding the words to make the position clear and, if you are prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could insert the words "or premises".

Mr. Speir: I would have been horrified if I thought that the Bill was not


going to provide safeguards for all owners of property and was not going to apply to all occupiers of property, be they tenants of houses, flats or tenements. I want the Clause to apply to all who occupy property in the widest sense of that word, even if they are only paying lodgers. My advice is that Clause 1 as drafted with the word "land" will meet the case. After all, we are proposing that the Clause should be operated under the terms and provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, and Section 343 (1) of that Act defines "land" as
any interest in land and any easement or right in, to, or over land.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) says that an additional word or two could do no harm. On the other hand, it is a great mistake to put in additional words when they are not necessary and we do not want to make the Bill too verbose.
Although I have no particularly strong feelings about this, I think that the use of the word "land" may be more comprehensive and more all-embracing than the word "premises." I am satisfied that the position of tenants of flats and of paying lodgers is fully and completely safeguarded with the use of the word "land."

Mr. Albert Evans: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) has not found it possible to accept the Amendment. We all accept what he has told us about the word "land" legally covering "premises" However, we will not be verbose by adding words or substituting words to make the meaning clear. The intention of the hon. Member and of everybody else is not to exclude anybody.

Mr. Speir: The word would be substituted not only here but in other places.

Mr. Evans: There will be consequential Amendments, but that can be arranged. We ought to avoid unnecessary legal argument when cases come before the courts and if the word "premises" is substituted for the word "land," that will cover every possible case which might come before the courts and will avoid possibility of dispute as to the interpretation of the word.

I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member will agree to accept the Amendment so that arrangements can be made for the words "or premises" to be included.

Mr. MacColl: I speak again by leave of the House. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) has not taken a little more seriously the tremendous weight of legal opinion which has been raised against him. I was astonished to find such support, but if there is such a substantial amount of support to be found among practising lawyers about what the word means, it will create confusion among lay members of local authorities and among justices if the word "land" remains.
Any normal person reading page 2 of the Bill would find the reference to Section 66 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act which says that the occupiers of premises shall be construed as the occupiers of land. A normal person will think that there is some reason for the alteration, making the possibly pathetic attempt which laymen make to find some reason for what lawyers do. There will then be a tendency among local magistrates to produce decisions which will result in confusion.

Mr. Speir: I have a great respect for the legal profession, but surely lawyers do not operate in such a casual fashion as that. I am not a lawyer, but surely any lawyer dealing with a Bill will first see to what it applies and will look at the definition Section.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: May I, by leave of the House, add that I think that the point made by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) is rather important? It has occurred to me since I last spoke that it is said in subsection (6):
In section sixty-six of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937&occupiers of premises within hearing of the noise nuisance shall be construed as a reference to three persons each of whom is the occupier of land&".
That would be confusing to a bench of magistrates. The bench would say that, whereas Parliament had previously said that they were to be occupiers of premises, it is now saying that they are to be occupiers of land. There is a real risk of people having to go to the Divisional Court to get it established


whether a lodger is covered. The addition of the words "or premises" is the right solution.
If the hon. Member for Widnes agrees to add the words "or premises" rather than what he has suggested and if you, Mr. Speaker, are willing to accept a manuscript Amendment, if the hon. Member for Widnes will withdraw his Amendment I will move my Amendment.

Mr. MacColl: I am merely anxious to make the Bill effective. I have no desire to hold it up or to be in any way obstructive. I certainly accept the weighty advice given by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). He and I have been members of the same local authority and we know the depths and heights of intelligence to which it can sink and rise. Therefore, I will gladly withdraw my Amendment and accept any form of words which will be clear to the ordinary person. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move, as a manuscript Amendment, in page 1, line 19, after "land" to insert "or premises"

Sir K. Joseph: I intervene with some diffidence, but my job is made easier because at least we are now discussing only one Amendment on which two principal protagonists are agreed. Up till now, there have been four alternative forms of words. There was the form of words in the Bill, namely "land." There were the three alternatives which different hon. Members proposed, namely "land or premises," "land and premises," and "premises."
I maintain that the present phrase in the Bill, namely "occupier of land," is more general and more precise than any phrase which has been suggested. It is more precise because "land" is defined in various Measures, particularly in Section 343 (1) of the Public Health Act, 1936, as including
messuages, buildings, lands, easements, and heriditaments of any tenure.
I am advised that that certainly covers any occupiers other than a casual lodger and therefore makes the Bill effective in the full sense, as hon. Gentlemen on both sides require.

Mr. Ede: Does that cover the occupier's wife?

Sir K. Joseph: It does not cover the occupier's wife unless she is the occupier, in which case it does not cover her husband.
I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) when he resists this because of verbosity. The proper reason for resisting the Amendment is because of confusion. We have here a definition which is general and at the same time precise. No court could possibly ignore the interpretation provisions laid down in the Public Health Act. The House would be most ill advised in this relatively casual way, playing about with four alternative forms of words, to disregard the very strong advice that I am able to give on legal backing that this form of words covers all that the House requires.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Why should not the lodger be covered?

Sir K. Joseph: That would be quite all right if the House so wishes, but we should have to change the word "occupier." If the House so wishes there is another place where that could be done, but that is not the Amendment which the House is at the moment considering. It is "occupier" that would then have to be changed, and not "land."
I therefore very strongly advise the House that the Amendment would lead to confusion and not to precision and would not broaden the Bill in any way.

Mr. Weitzman: I do not understand the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary. He says that this will lead to confusion, that the word "land" is precise, and that therefore we should reject the Amendment. The words "occupier of land" are in the Bill. If the Amendment is carried, the words will be, "occupier of land or premises." Therefore "occupier of land" will remain. Where will the confusion be then? If there is a doubt, we should add the words "or premises." It is certainly no argument to say that, if we accept the Amendment, there will be confusion.
One of the things which troubles me about it is that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) said that "occupier of land" includes a paying lodger. There might be a legal argument about


that. If the words "occupier of premises" were in the Bill, they probably would include a paying lodger. In any case, I agree that the word "lodger" ought to be considered in another place. I cannot for the life of me accept the argument that, if the words "or premises" are adopted, there will be confusion.

Sir K. Joseph: May I, by leave of the House, intervene again? I think that the confusion arises because both "land" and "premises" have slightly different interpretations in the Acts which define them. Therefore, if there is a question of a change in the Bill, I should far prefer the proposal of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). The addition of words leads to a possibility of confusion which one single word which is well defined in the Public Health Act does not.
Since I find that the addition of words is even more confusing than the substitution of words and since no one has been able to show that the word in the Bill, namely "land," omits any single person except a lodger, who cannot be introduced by the Amendment, I suggest that the House would be wise to accept the Bill as at present drafted.

Mr. Weitzman: By leave of the House, may I say that I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Secretary interrupted me or I interrupted him. May I finish what I had intended to say? If the words were "occupier of land and premises," I could understand the argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary, but the words proposed are "occupier of land or premises." They therefore cover both and there cannot be the slightest risk of any confusion.

Mr. MacColl: I am in the unusual position of not having spoken at least twice on the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted the definition of "land" given in the Public Health Act, 1936. That Act by and large does not apply to London. The appropriate legislation in London is the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, in which "land" is not defined but "premises" is.
After the two 1936 Acts were passed, Parliament, fully aware of the definitions
given in those Acts of "land" and "premises", in the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937, used the word "premises". That word was in the original draft of this Bill as presented to the House, but it was taken out in Committee. To say that the Bill is clear, which is what the Parliamentary Secretary says, is over-simplifying it. It is not clear. The word "premises" would not have been used in this context in the 1936 Act if that Act would have been clear without it and it would not have been used by the hon. Gentleman in the first draft of the Bill if it was unnecessary. I will not fall into the trap of being led to believe by the flattery of the Parliamentary Secretary that my drafting is better. I have made my alliance with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), and I will stick to that alliance.

Major Hicks Beach: I regret to have to say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that, in my view, the advice he has received is wrong. His argument in support of it is equally wrong. He said that the word "land" was more general than "land or premises". That is not sense. Of course "land or premises" is much more general than "land". It is the House which legislates, and not the Civil Service. I strongly recommend hon. Members to support the Amendment. I shall certainly vote for it if it comes to a Division.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Having listened to the debate, may I express my own opinion for what it is worth? My opinion is that there will be less confusion if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is accepted. I feel convinced that there will be confusion unless it is accepted. I am very impressed by the fact that there is a difference between the language of the Public Health Act, 1936, which applies outside London, and the language in the Public Health (London) Act which applies to London.
Since the Bill which we are now considering is intended to apply inside London and outside London, I should have thought that the arguments were convincing that, in order to avoid any possible doubt or obscurity, we should in Clause 1 substitute the phrase "land or premises" for the word "land". I


hope that the hon. Member will take the view of the House.

Mr. Ede: The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered the question which I put to him. In the plethora of legal advice we have had no one has attempted to deal with it. Would it be a good defence for a person prosecuted to say that one or more of the complainants is either the wife of the occupier and not the occupier or the husband of the occupier and not the occupier? The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) wants to include a paying lodger. Would it be a good defence to say that one of the complainants, being a lodger, has not paid any rent for the last six weeks?

Mr. Speir: With the leave of the House, may I say that I have since been advised that the lodger is out? I had contrary advice before, but I understand now that the lodger is out, so the right hon. Gentleman's question does not arise.

Mr. Ede: if the lodger is out, he cannot have heard the noise. Let us face the reality of the situation. It is most likely that the complainants will be three wives whose husbands are away at work. There is no dispute that in those circumstances the prosecution is bound to fail.
I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is attempting to advise two lawyers. I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) is capable of advising and even instructing the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South is only entitled to tell them what is his opinion and hope, in the confused state they are now in, to get fresh instructions, either from them or my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I supported the hon. Member for Hex-ham on his Litter Bill and I know that next Wednesday I shall see what a complete failure it is, in view of what I saw on television on a recent Friday.
There is nothing worse than to face legislation so worded as to make it very difficult of application and likely to lead to interminable arguments in the magistrates' room, when they have retired, as to whether the prosecution has been validly launched having regard to the exact terms of the Section.

11.45 a.m.

I want to see this Bill go through, but I want to see it become a workable Act, and it seems to me that it does not matter very much whether I vote for or against the Amendment. We shall have to rely on the Law Lords in another place bending their great intellects to consideration of this subject and to providing us with a form of words which will never reach them, in their capacity as Law Lords, for interpretation.

Mr. Speir: With the leave of the House, I should like to say that, in view of the strong arguments put forward and the powerful speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and in view of the assistance which he gave me during the passage of the Litter Bill through this House, I would be prepared to accept the Manuscript Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The object of the Amendment in page 2, line 28, to leave out from "land" to the end of the line, is to avoid any awkward marginal cases. At present, if the nuisance arises in the district of one local authority, the three objectors have all to be occupiers of land or premises.

Mr. MacColl: On a point of order. I think that at this point a further manuscript Amendment would be required. I am wondering whether when we move to the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", we shall not get into difficulties with consequential Amendments.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Before moving my Amendment, I think that we should be moving backwards if I did not move to insert the words, "or premises". This is one of two places where the consequential Amendment on the Amendment we have just passed will have to be inserted.
I would ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move a manuscript Amendment, in page 2, line 28, after "land" to insert "or premises".

Mr. Speaker: I will tell the House what I feel about it. The point of inserting the words "or premises" has been established in the view of the House this morning. I would personally be rather relieved if I did not have to bother about


consequential manuscript Amendments this morning. No doubt that can be done in another place.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I accept your Ruling. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speir: Further to that point of order. If the Bill is to be amended, surely it ought to be amended properly here and now, because we might get into difficulties if it were amended in another place. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps you would like to reconsider your Ruling, and allow my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) to move his manuscript Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to create difficulties for anyone, of course. I do not follow this. If it is right in one place it would seem to me to be right in another place. I do not know at the moment what consequential Amendments are necessary or unnecessary. I do not follow why there should be any difficulty about it in another place. The Bill has to go through another place—but I would welcome guidance.

Mr. Bell: I am quite willing to comply with any course. I thought that if I moved the manuscript Amendment it would 'be passed "on the nod" and would perhaps avoid difficulties on Amendments at a later stage. If, Mr. Speaker, you would be willing to accept that course, I beg to move, as a manuscript Amendment, in page 2, line 28, after "land" to insert "or premises".

Mr. Speaker: This is not about betting and gaming. Is the hon. Member sure that I have received a sufficient number of these little bits of paper?

Amendment reed to.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out from "land" to the end of the line.
The object of the Amendment is to deal with the marginal case that would otherwise arise Where the nuisance is in the area of one authority and two of the three objectors are in that authority's area but the third is not. As the Clause is drafted, all three have to live in three houses contiguous to the noise, so that in such a case those people could not make a valid objection to the authority, and the machinery of the Bill could not

operate. There seems to be no particular reason for these words to be in the Clause. In any case, I believe that this Amendment is acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir).

Mr. Speir: I am glad to say that this Amendment has been approved by the Scottish authorities. I am, therefore, able to accept it, and I hope that the House will agree that, in this case, silence is golden.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacColl: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that line 47 in page 2 will also require a piece of paper.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, ine 47, after "land" insert "or premises".—[Mr. Ronald Bell.]

Mr. Speir: I beg to move, in page 2, line 48, at the end to insert: (7) Nothing in this section or the said section sixty-six shall apply to noise or vibration caused by aircraft.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I notice, in page 2, line 45, the phrase:
…householders or occupiers of premises…
Should we not there insert the word "land"?

Mr. Speaker: We can do many things, but we cannot go back.

Mr. Speir: I emphasised during Second Reading that this Bill is a compromise Measure, and in the Standing Committee I emphasised that it does not seek to cover every possible noise nuisance. It is in the nature of a stopgap Measure and I have never tried to hide the fact that, as a result., it is full of quite large gaps. That, I think, is quite inevitable in the circumstances.
At the same time, it is obviously wise for Parliament to tread warily—and I address my remarks more particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell)—in what is a somewhat complicated matter. Nevertheless, I believe that the Bill is a big step forward in the right direction, and that, in spite of the gaps in it, it is still a worth-while Measure.
One of the gaps to which I drew particular attention on Second Reading was the noise caused by aircraft. I pointed


out that the Measure would not apply to aircraft; that they were Statute-barred under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949; and that it would require international agreement before we could hope successfully to tackle this very large, important and urgent problem of seeking to prevent and to eradicate noise and vibration caused by aircraft in the air and at aerodromes.
I am advised that, as the Bill now stands, proceedings could not be taken in respect of Crown aerodromes or aircraft, and that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are adequately safeguarded as statutory undertakers, but that other air firms, other aerodromes, and foreign aircraft—whether of the U2 variety or other kinds —will not be so protected unless this Amendment is incorporated in the Clause. That being the case, I am afraid that I must advise the Committee that, for the time being, and until there has been more research and inquiry into this problem, aerodromes and aircraft should continue to be exempted from the provisions of Clause 1.
The House will know that the Government have already set up an Inter-Departmental Committee to examine the nature, sources and effects of noise, and hon. Members will be glad to hear that the Committee has been asked especially to study and report on this aspect of the problem. That being the case, I think that we have no option but to await the Committee's report. We would be well advised to give it a free hand to see what steps can and should be taken to diminish the noise caused by aircraft, and I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(RESTRICTION OF OPERATION ON HIGHWAYS, &C., OF LOUDSPEAKERS.)

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, at the end to insert "whistle, bell, or bugle"

Mr. Speir: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is also moving his Amendment in page 3, line 8, after "loudspeaker," insert "whistle, bell or bugle."

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) cannot move both Amendments at one and the

same time, but as the same point is involved it is inevitable that they should be discussed together.

Mr. Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My interest in the Bill, and certainly my reason for putting down the Amendment, results from a letter that I received from the general manager of the new town of Glenrothes in Fife, Brigadier Purches, who had evidently seen the terms of the Bill as amended in the Standing Committee. He wrote to me as follows:
It is most distressing to find the Bill does not cover a very serious complaint which reaches me from all sides in Glenrothes.
There is great nuisance committed here by street traders who stand in the streets sounding their horns, blowing whistles, ringing bells, and even blowing on a bugle to summon the housewives to purchase their needs. I have received countless complaints about this; the gist of the complaints being that this cacophony keeps shift workers awake, it disturbs the elderly and the sick, and prevents the young children—and as you know there are many of them in Glenrothes—from resting during the day. This noise starts about 7 o'clock in the morning and carries on incessantly throughout the day, and peace does not seem to descend upon us until about 10 p.m. That applies every day including Sundays.
The writer goes on to say that the same nuisance occurs in the other new town in Scotland, East Kilbride; that they have tried to get it remedied by the local authorities and have failed. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) to accept the Amendment. I realise what he has said in another context, that this is, as it were, a stop-gap Measure and does not pretend to cover all these wretched noises, but I think this is rather a minor extension of his compromise Measure and I hope he will see fit to accept the Amendment

12 noon.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Before my hon. Friend replies, would he consider all the implications of including the word "bugle" which is, after all, only one of a wide variety of musical instruments? If a bugle, why not a bagpipe? If a bagpipe, why not a Welsh harp? If a Welsh harp, why not an oboe or a trombone or any other of the wide variety of musical instruments? It would be dangerous to write into an Act


of Parliament a single musical instrument, when we consider all the musical instruments which are played in the street and make a loud noise.
I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I have had as much trouble from this sort of thing as he has. My constituents have been troubled in the same way, and they often write to me about these niusances, but I think it would be dangerous to specify one instrument. A bugle may make a noise which is particularly melodious to many people. For many years I was aroused by a bugle and learned to love its tones, notwithstanding the appalling hour that it summoned me to my duties. As I say, I learned to love its tones; others love the tones of the trombone. But the national musical instrument of Scotland, the bagpipe, will have to be considered as well, and so will the national musical instrument of Wales, the Welsh harp.
I hope my hon. Friend will not jump to any hasty or impetuous conclusion in this important matter.

Mr. Speir: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has already answered the point. I know that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) is a representative of the Kingdom of Fife, and the Kingdom of Fife likes to be independent in matters of this kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster has asked why this Amendment should be limited to whistles, bells and bugles. As he said, what about trombones or trumpets or bagpipes? Personally, I have sufficient Scottish blood in my veins to enjoy the sound of the bagpipes out of doors.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speir: I may say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster that he may have come to love the sound of the bugle, but it will take me a long time before I come to love his sound.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by "my sound" Does he refer to the musical quality, or whether it is euphonious, or to what I say?

Mr. Speir: I mean the all-embracing note and tone of the hon. Member's sound.
If there is any locality in which Britain suffers too much from whistles, bells or bugles it is up to the city fathers or their rural counterparts to introduce a special byelaw. There are model byelaws in existence; they are available in the Home Office or the Scottish Office, and the people to whom I have just referred should consider introducing the more stringent provisions which exist in these byelaws. That is the way to deal with this nuisance. I think this Amendment is too vague and goes too far, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press it.

Sir Leslie Plummer: When we were dealing with the Bill in Committee I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman who sponsored it that under its provisions there was nothing to prevent a man using a whistle or a bugle and—heaven help me—I did not know that people were already using whistles and bugles. I had not experienced this although, like the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I too have suffered from noise.
Nothing is more annoying than constantly having to listen to a man blowing his own trumpet and playing not only in the hours of daylight but darkness, too. Our ears have been assaulted by this solo obligato on the trumpet Which advertises wares which we think at times are dubious. Therefore, we ought to put a stop to this sort of thing.
The ice-cream manufacturers are now saying that they are increasing their trade enormously as a result of assaulting the ears of their potential customers, and, indeed, there are other Amendments, which it would be out of order to discuss now, which deal with this nuisance. The efforts of these people to increase their sales by this noise are causing jealousy among other traders who wish they could have the same opportunity. Unless some restrictions are placed on the sort of instruments which are to be used, we shall find our days and nights disturbed by such a variety of jangle and noise as to make life, particularly in our cities, almost intolerable.

Mr. Ede: I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that the use of a whistle is the way in which the police forces of this country, and I believe of Scotland also, summon aid when they require it. To make it a statutory


offence to sound a whistle might gravely hamper them in the discharge of their duties.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Sitting here, I have often suffered from noises resembling a trombone or a clarion—

Mr. Speaker: It would be out of order for the hon. Member to pursue that matter, because this Clause relates to noises in the streets.

Mr. Bell: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) will resist this Amendment, because it proposes an absolute prohibition which would be too severe for this purpose. Whistles, bells and bugles are covered by Clause 1 if they constitute an ordinary noise nuisance. Clause 2, to which this Amendment refers, provides for the absolute prohibition of the operation of loudspeakers, regardless of whether they are operated in such a way as to cause a nuisance. If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter in that light, he will see that to suggest that no use of a whistle, bugle or bell whatever shall be permissible in a street between certain hours is too drastic, inasmuch as the oppressive or annoying use of such instruments is already covered under Clause 1.

Mr. MacColl: I have my doubts about this Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) has moved. We all sympathise with his problem, but this Amendment goes rather wide and it would cover even the muffin man ringing his bell. It would cover many of the local features of life which are regarded as worth preserving.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Such as the Boy Scouts.

Mr. MacColl: No, I do not think it would cover the Boy Scouts unless they were advertising either themselves or some appropriate articles which they were trying to sell.

Mr. Pannell: What about "Bob a Job Week"?

Mr. MacColl: I was about to say that if the local cubs were to use this means of announcing that they were available during "Bob a Job Week" they might be covered.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that any band which included a bugle would be affected by the Amendment?

Mr. MacColl: I think that where one ought to draw the line is between mechanical amplification and what one can do with one's own voice or wind. It is a mystery to me how anybody can get any noise out of a bugle at all, but people apparently can get quite a substantial noise from it. If they do it, I think that it ought, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, to come under Clause 1, the nuisance Clause, rather than the prohibition Clause.
Once one enters the realm of mechanical amplification, the case for complete prohibition is very much stronger. I suggest, therefore, that the wise thing for the House to do would be not to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment—I speak as an individual, expressing my own view only—but to leave the matter for action under Clause 1.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and hon. Members who have doubted the wisdom of the Amendment will consider the implications of what they are saying. I realise the difficulties of definition here and perhaps we ought to have a manuscript Amendment incorporating some term such as "musical instrument" instead of using words identifying a particular instrument. On the other hand, if this Amendment is not accepted and my hon. Friend's argument is rejected, the result will be to limit ourselves to mechanical methods of making noises through loudspeakers, and all that will mean is that the ice-cream vans about which we shall have more to say will cease to be equipped with mechanical means for making jingles. The ice-cream sellers will equip the drivers with sets of bagpipes, bugles or bells, and the nuisance which we are trying to stop will be recreated on an even wider scale.
Surely, the fact that this is associated with the purpose of advertising a trade or business is a sufficient limitation. If anyone wishes to use this kind of instrument for the purpose of selling something, he aught to be prohibited if it is done in a way to cause a nuisance.


In my own constituency, a good deal of trouble is caused by this sort of thing.
In Dundee, we have a fine old boll-ringing tradition. Our traditional method of canvassing people and bringing them out to vote at elections is to have someone stand in the middle of the tenements and ring a dinner bell. There was a famous occasion in Dundee's political history when the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was our Member. He was heckled by a dinner bell and the chairman put it to the meeting whether people wanted to hear the right hon. Gentleman or the dinner bell. The meeting voted overwhelmingly for the dinner bell.
There will have been protests in the housing estates of Dundee about the use of bells and other musical instruments for attracting trade.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman will remember that Lord Hailsham defeated the Labour Party with a bell.

Mr. Thomson: I hoped that it was one of the motives behind the promotion of the Bill by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) to deal with exactly that kind of thing.
I suggest that, if the actual form of words in the Amendment is not acceptable to the hon. Member for Hexham, he might consider a more general form of words to prevent musical instruments being used to make a nuisance for the purposes of trade.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: The provision with which we are concerned is really in two parts. During daylight hours, between eight in the morning and nine in the evening, there is a prohibition for the purposes of advertising only. Between nine in the evening and eight in the morning, the prohibition is absolute for all purposes.
There is a later Amendment designed to alter the period of daylight hours covered for this purpose, it being intended to substitute six in the evening for nine in the evening. The effect of that would be not only to prohibit the blowing of a police whistle at certain hours, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, but, if the Amendment were accepted, it would then become illegal to sound a bicycle bell after six p.m.

Mr. Speir: I think that my hon. Friend has not seen that subsection (2, e) provides for the case of emergency. Subsection (1) does not then apply.

Mr. Bishop: I suppose that that would cover the police whistle, but I doubt very much whether it would cover the bicycle bell. It seems to me that the proposed Amendment is far too wide and I hope that the House will not accept it.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton: By leave of the House, I should like to make one or two points in reply, particularly to what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabaro) said. I had in mind the danger which might result from defining certain musical instruments and leaving wide open loopholes, but, if I may say so, the Bill is riddled with them. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) ought not to talk about anything being too vague or going too far. When we come to certain of the later Amendments, we shall try to show him the danger of vagueness in the wording of the Bill. Even the term "loudspeaker" would, I presume, cover the hon. Member for Kidderminster. One does not know. One would not want to do anything to prohibit his activities in the streets or anywhere else. One really does not know from the terms of the Bill what the word "loudspeaker" covers.
What I was wishing to do in the Amendment was to define the instruments which it is alleged may be used or, indeed, which are being used in specific cases. The general manager at Glenrothes is a man of special responsibility and he would not send that kind of letter if he did not feel strongly about it. The ban is not absolute, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). There are other provisions in the Bill to limit the hours.
I should have thought that hon. Members would agree to put this provision in the Bill. If the hon. Member for Hexham thinks that it is too drastic, he could, on reflection, arrange for the other place to do something about it

Mr. C. Pannell: I do not think that this is too wide at all. On looking at the provisions here, I see that they are all included in the byelaws of the local authority in the area where I live. There


is nothing to stop a local authority in all these matters making byelaws. Indeed, in many cases they are there. I am generally in favour of including things in Acts of Parliament rather than in local authority byelaws, if it is possible. If it is reasonable for Government Departments to bless the byelaws of the local authority for the area in which I live, as the Parliamentary Secretary's Department has done, there is no reason why they should not bless this.
The difficulty about some of the suggestions made is that there is a provision in the Road Traffic Act against the sounding of a motor horn except to give audible warning of approach, but motor horns are being used by traders on their vans. In effect, that is illegal. The police do not prosecute. Even then, it would be necessary to have a complaint from two or three householders in order to deal with the matter. Very often, women will not take on themselves the odium of that during the week, so things are left to the weekend.
We have spoken a lot about the chimes of ice-cream vans. I know of a mobile shop which sounds a bell or a mechanical hooter. As I say, all these things are provided for already. If it is possible for the Department to meet in byelaws the exact things about which my hon. Friend is complaining, why cannot similar provisions be incorporated in the Bill?
I can only assume that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was being facetious when he spoke about police whistles, because nobody intended for a moment that the blowing of police whistles should be prohibited. It is covered by the emergency paragraph. On the other hand, it might be a good thing if whistles were sounded only by the police. Following that train of thought, I am reminded of something someone said about people whistling their dogs. I do not think that people whistle their dogs with mechanical whistles. Do they?

Major Hicks Beach: They do.

Mr. C. Pannell: I should have thought that people could call their dogs in all sorts of ways, but hardly in that way. The bicycle bell would, I think, be covered by the existing Act of Parliament which provides for giving audible

warning of approach of a vehicle. Therefore, on a Friday morning I do not think that we ought to put up all these Aunt Sallies to be knocked down. The short point is that the matter can be dealt with by byelaws.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I do not think that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was putting up Aunt Sallies to be knocked down. In subsection (2, e) the hon. Member will find the words "in the case of emergency", and the opening words of subsection (2) are
The foregoing subsection shall not apply to the operation of a loudspeaker.
So that this exemption in the case of emergency only applies to the special provision against loudspeakers. It would not cover a whistle.

Mr. Pannell: if that is so, the short answer is that the matter obviously would have been dealt with in another place.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to the House to consider with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) in page 3, line 3, that in the name of the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Glyn) in page 3, line 3, to leave out "nine" and insert "six". I will put the Question on the first Amendment in a form which will keep the second Amendment open.

Mr. Hamilton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out from beginning to "for" in line 4 and to insert:
at any time on a Sunday, or before ten o'clock in the morning or after seven o'clock in the evening, on any other day
The purpose of the Amendment is two-fold—first, to extend the hours of prohibition on weekdays, and, secondly, to impose a complete prohibition on Sundays.
I do not move the Amendment because I am a strict Sabbatarian, nor am I a member of any bigoted organisation like the Lord's Day Observance Society. I recollect a week or two ago that wretched machine on the Thames, the Hovercraft, which is just an indication of the price that one has to pay for so-called progress. When we get this sort of thing, I think that Sunday should be distinguished from other days as much for its rest from the clang and clatter of our


modern society as for its religious observance.
In this connection I have been reading the speeches in this House on the occasion of the suggested opening of the Festival of Britain Amusement Park in 1950–51. It was an extremely interesting debate. It was argued very forcibly largely by Members of the Conservative Party, although not by any means entirely —it was a non-party debate—first, that one ought not to make people work on Sundays if it could possibly be avoided, and, secondly, that we ought to minimise the noise of the everyday world on Sundays as much as possible.
I do not want to weary the House with quotations from that debate, but suffice it to say that the Government of the day, a Labour Government, were defeated by a very substantial majority on the question of the opening of the Fun Fair, largely on the grounds that it would be noisy, that it would be an affront to our traditional Sunday observance, and that it would be an advance towards what was described as a Continental Sunday.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hamilton: In those circumstances, I think that I am on firm ground in moving the Amendment, particularly the part of it relating to complete prohibition on Sundays. I believe that there is great and growing concern among our people at the intrusion of noise into our Sundays. I hope that the promotion of the Bill will see fit to accept this part of the Amendment.
The second part of the Amendment seeks to extend the hours instead of from nine in the evening to eight in the morning to seven in the evening to ten in the morning. First, children, in particular, go to bed fairly early and are woken up quite often by this clanging and wretched din in the street. If that noise were to continue until nine o'clock at night it would be extremely difficult for children to settle down.
The reason for the proposal to extend the hour from eight o'clock to ten o'clock in the morning is this. If I might refer again to the letter from Glenrothes, this wretched din of bugles, whistles and a whole cacophony of horrible sounds starts at seven in the morning. I want to stop that until ten o'clock in the morn-

ing, when children have gone to school and mothers have gone shopping. I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Spier) will see fit to accept the Amendment.

Mr. C. Pannell: I am in favour of the Amendment to a certain degree, but I am not in favour of that part of it which refers to seven o'clock in the evening. I think that it should be 6 p.m. I am not impressed by the propaganda which we have received from Messrs. Wall & Sons which the promoter of the Bill seems to have accepted. The point is not that the noise is limited to so many decibels by sealed equipment. The bother to suburban life is the incessant noise.
The only reason why I came to the House today was an experience I had last Sunday. By four o'clock, five ice-cream vans had gone past any house. I live at No. 159 in a certain road and at the end they come down. In effect there was a constant cacophony until four o'clock. Whatever Wall & Sons may say about the limited number of decibels in its curious instrument, I very much doubt whether it cannot be interfered with. Simply because Wall & Sons has limited its instrument—let us assume for the sake of argument that it has limited the noise—other ice-cream vendors have pitched their instrument at a higher note and on a louder volume merely to indicate that they have something different.
At four o'clock, because a child had been awakened, I went to see one of the young men who drive the vans. He had not an idea about the law. It was no use telling him that the Lord Chief Justice had upheld the Newport Corporation in a famous case. He could not have cared less. He merely shrugged his shoulders when I said to him, "Cannot you pipe down, chum?" He just sounded all of the bells, I suppose as a way of showing his derision, and moved off. I had no doubt that the local authority was protected by bye-laws, and I made a complaint, but I was told, "Find the other witnesses" It is difficult to get people to come forward to make a complaint and go down to the police court. In the road in which I live it would be literally true to say that we were not free of noise from ice-cream vans from ten in the morning until four in the afternoon.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has mentioned the name of one firm involved in this matter. Can he give us the names of the other firms who are disturbing him?

Mr. Speaker: I think there must be some restriction in the interests of order. I am not sure about this device which torments the hon. Member. I do not know whether it operates by loudspeaker at all, and this Amendment is concerned with loudspeakers.

Mr. Pannell: They are mechanical devices. I would not wish to get into controversy with the Chair on the subject of the nomenclature, but they are recording instruments which amplify the sound and which any less friendly engineer would call a loudspeaker.

Mr. Speir: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to the fact that there is another Amendment later on the Notice Paper in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), to page 3, line 31, after first "loudspeaker", to insert:
between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening of the same day".
and suggest that it might be convenient to discuss the matter of these chimes on that Amendment?

Mr. Pannell: I am trying to speak about five ice-cream vendors, only one of which, on their own testimony, probably qualifies for the chimes. Some of them, certainly, amplify the sound through loudspeakers.

Mr. Ronald Bell: What, about the other four?

Mr. Pannell: I do not think I would be justified in doing that, because none of the other four have submitted to Members of the House, as Wall's ice-cream people have done, their own testimony. Had they done so, I would have done it. I do not necessarily want to charge the firm concerned with something which their employees may have done to offend me. I do not think I would be justified in giving a list of all the ice-cream vendors who passed on that occasion. When we get a great organisation like Walls submitting something to hon. Members of this House, I am justified in

answering it, and that is the line I tried to take. I hope people will consider it a proper line to take in these circumstances.
I intend to burke anything which tends to take a completely Sabbatarian view. I appreciate that ice-cream is the sort of thing that is wanted, and that one can use it for a sweet. I find a difficulty with this point which I think my hon. Friend finds himself.

Mr. Hamilton: There is nothing to restrict a man from trading. The Amendment does restrict people from advertising by hooting and blowing, but there is nothing to stop them going round the streets.

Mr. Pannell: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I have no doubt that in the last resort I shall probably come down on his side. I think my hon. Friend is being modest in suggesting seven o'clock, and I would prefer six o'clock. My objection is to incessant noise, and one would imagine from the literature which they put out that Messrs. Wall are the only ice-cream vendors. They are not, though they may be the principal people in their own field. There are plenty of imitators, and there is no doubt why they should not continue to go on being imitated by other people.
I have always looked upon the Sabbath day, not as some people do, as a spiritual necessity, but as a physical necessity. It is necessary on behalf of oneself and one's children to have one day in seven free from the turmoil of the week.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The hon. Member for Fife. West (Mr. W. Hamilton) is much braver than I was in putting down his Amendment. I think that all will agree that what we are trying to get at here is noise, which, certainly in the inner ring of London, about which I can speak with some authority, is becoming absolutely maddening. One after another, not only ice-cream vans but even the paraffin man and everybody else comes round. What we are trying to do is to restrict noise, and also to protect two categories of people, one the night workers and the other the children.
I think that some Amendment should be accepted, and I am perfectly willing to compromise on this. I think that silence on Sundays has a great deal of merit, but perhaps we are going a little


too far in the hon. Member's Amendment in restricting noise in the evenings. There is no question about it: London has become an absolute menace. People who work at night find it almost impossible to sleep during the day. Is it all necessary? The milkman in the morning does not have to ring a bell, because he knows that he can deliver the milk. It may be possible to induce many who are now making noises to adopt what was an extremely good idea before the war—that of placing a card in the window of a flat or house for the vendor to see. A great deal of nuisance was saved in that way.
I am quite prepared to be reasonable about the Amendment and to consider other suggestions, and, if you, Mr. Speaker, will accept a manuscript Amendment, perhaps we could arrive at a compromise.

Mr. Speaker: I should be resistant to any manuscript Amendment fiddling about with the hours any more.

Mr. Speir: As I have emphasised on several occasions, the object of the Bill is to restrain noise, to control it and abate it, but not to abolish it altogether. The Bill is essentially a compromise between extremists who would like to go too far and those who want no control at all.
With due respect, I suggest to Parliament that in a matter of this kind, a somewhat novel matter, in which we are quite definitely restricting the liberty of the subject—in this case, the right of the individual to make a noise—it behoves Parliament to go warily and cautiously. It behoves us also in this issue especially to remember that we are dealing with a very complicated subject, which is also somewhat of an emotional subject, on which strong views are held by many people. We ought, therefore, to go cautiously.
I believe that it would be a great mistake for this Bill to go too fast or too far. We ought to recall once again that the Government have set up a Departmental Committee to look into the whole problem of noise. That Committee is already at work. At this stage, therefore, we ought not to go beyond a reasonable limit, and I think that a reasonable limit is to say that there should be no loudspeakers in the streets between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m.
I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to the fact that if the noise is unreasonable, as apparently it was in his case last Sunday, it is within his power and within the power of the police and the local authority to take action under the Clause as it is now drafted, or even under Clause 1. But to go further than that at this stage and to increase the hours of total prohibition not only to include 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. but also all day on Sundays would be somewhat excessive.
In a later Amendment, I am suggesting a further restriction on ice-cream chimes; I suggest that they should be prohibited between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. I hope that the House will agree with me that we should now act cautiously, and that this proposed Amendment is somewhat excessive and unreasonable at this stage. Again, I emphasise that if in any area ice-cream vendors are abusing their privileges—and I realise that there are such areas—it is up to the local authorities to introduce a special byelaw to deal with that problem. I therefore hope that the House will not accept this Amendment.

Sir L. Plummer: I ask the House to think for a moment about the problems which mothers have in trying to get their children to bed and to sleep. All of us who represent London constituencies are familiar with the large blocks of flats which have been erected by the local authorities. We all know about the continuous noise which takes place around these flats, with people coming into the flats and making noises of one sort or another, ringing hells, sounding these "musical" chimes and assaulting the ears of the people on whom they have their trading designs.
Mothers come home from work, having been at work during the day, and their first job is to put the children to bed. Their first interruption takes place generally about the time they arrive home, for the vendor, knowing that the mother has arrived home from work, starts his operations about 6 p.m. Getting the children to sleep in competition with people who keep the radio on too loud, and with people who slam doors, is bad enough, but, on top of it, to have not only the noise which the trader makes but also the awakened desire in the child for the things which the trader


is selling, particularly ice cream, gives the mother a devil of a job. We should ensure that when children ought to be going to sleep, they can go to sleep and that other people are not allowed to go around awakening them.
Life in London is bad enough as it is. There is a hideous cacophony of noise. Motor buses are too noisy and motor cycles are a menace. People who live near airfields have a bad time with the noise from aeroplanes. That is excluded from the Bill. But there are some positive things which we can do in the Bill.
I see no reason why there should not be this prohibition from 6 p.m. Most shops close before 6 p.m. The traders in them have done their trade. People want to be at home and to be quiet. They do not want competition with family life in this way.

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers: My hon. Friend says that people do not want to be disturbed in the evenings. In that event, how is it that the great bulk of ice cream is sold between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m.? He should remember that most adults do not arrive home until after 6 p.m. and that this is the time, therefore, of the greatest demand for ice cream.

Sir L. Plummer: I do not deny that I have seen some of the propaganda issued by some of the ice-cream manufacturers in which they say that they sell 35 to 50 per cent. of their produce in the evenings. I am not suggesting that they should not do so. I am sugesting that they should sell it quietly and that they should not go into the courtyards of flats, kick up a row and cause annoyance there. I see no reason that they should not do a house-to-house sale exactly as the milkman does.
It is not beyond the wit or intelligence of the sales managers of these vast international organisations, such as that to which Messrs. Wall belong, to devise some way of selling ice cream quietly. They used to sell it quietly and there is no reason why they should not do that again. It is wrong that, simply in the interests of their being able to make themselves more effective and more efficient, they should make people's lives miserable with their noise. They could

adjust themselves to selling without noise. They could do what is done in other parts of the country. In Huyton, for example, there are people who have given up using these methods of attracting customers and are simply going from door to door in their selling, which is much better in every way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) knows that a man who goes into a courtyard with a loudspeaker, about 6 p.m., trying to induce the inhabitants to vote for him, makes himself pretty unpopular. It is much better to go quietly on to the doorstep than to use a loudspeaker. Indeed, I should like to see political loudspeakers banned, too. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Claplham (Dr. A. Glyn) were accepted it would be impossible for loudspeakers to be used for political purposes after 6 p.m. No sensible candidate would ever use a loudspeaker after 6 p.m., in any event, for the very reason that it outrages parents who are trying to put their children to sleep. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Mr. Speir: The hon. Member says, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander," but I would point out to him that what is good for an urban area may not necessarily be good for a rural area. There is a big difference. The Clause applies throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain. In certain cases, therefore, it is far better to rely for more stringent regulations on local byelaws.

Sir L. Plummer: If the hon. Member is concerned only about rural areas and he likes to arrange in another place to say that this noise shall not be made in London, between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 a.m., I shall be ready to accept that.

Mr. C. Pannell: It could be the Metropolitan Police area.

Sir L. Plummer: Yes. I should not mind that at all. If people living in rural areas do not mind the ice-cream vendors making a noise at 8.45 p.m. in the villages, then I do not mind the rural areas being excluded from the provision which I suggest. I am speaking about London, where we have a large concentration of people who can be disturbed, and a great many children preparing for sleep at the time when these noises are taking place.


For this reason and the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I support the Amendment.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: We are in some difficulty with the Amendment. I am very much in sympathy with the first part of it, which relates to Sundays, and not very much in sympathy with the second part of it, which restricts the hours. I should like to add something to what has been said by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) about the sanctity of Sunday in this context. I take exactly the same view on this subject as the hon. Member for Leeds, West. Sabbatarian views apart, the most important function on Sunday in a personal sense is to obtain leisure in the peace and quietness of one's own home. I think that that is the wish of the overwhelming majority of the working men and women in this country.
I am not in a position to comment on the Walls ice-cream controversy. It may be strange, but I have never heard one of these Walls ice-cream noises. I do not live in London and they do not operate between the hours of 11.30 p.m. and 7.30 a.m., which is the only period I am in my room in London when Parliament is sitting. Out of London and in a rural area where I live, there are no Walls ice-cream vans going round. I am therefore not in a position to comment on the controversy.
What I feel with great fervour is that it is wholly wrong for any kind of loudspeaker, or instrument akin to it, to operate at any time on a Sunday. There is no reason for that kind of thing at all. Half-a-dozen people have come to me in the last few days and have said, "Mr. Nabarro, do not stop the Walls ice-cream van from going round. We like it and it tells us when we can go out to buy ice cream."There may be divided views about this.

Mr. Speir: There are.

Mr. Nabarro: I am not prepared to make a decision one way or another at this stage, but I feel strongly that most people who buy their ice cream for week-end use could buy it on Saturday instead of Sunday.

Mr. Speir: It is perishable.

Mr. Nabarro: No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) has heard of a refrigerator. In houses without a refrigerator, there are other means of preserving ice cream. I do not want to go into the technicalities of ice-cream preservation. I am neither for nor against Messrs. Wall. Evidently they have carried out a magnificent propaganda campaign in the House of Commons with their pamphlets. But I believe that noise from loudspeakers and similar instruments on a Sunday ought to be the subject of total prohibition.
I will not quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham at this stage. This is a matter which can be considered by the inter-Departmental Committee on noise which was announced in response to a Parliamentary Question put down by myself last December. This Sabbatarian issue of noise, especially in the context of loudspeakers, ought to be decided by that Committee, not by the Bill.
I recall with interest the Parliamentary occasion in 1951 to which the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) referred when one of the most heated debates to which I have listened in this House arose on a free vote about whether the Festival Gardens and the Fun Fair at Battersea should be open on Sunday. I was one of those who took the view—I am not sure whether I spoke during the debate—that the noise that would be created by a fair of that kind was unwarranted, and that as the overwhelming majority of people worked a five-day week they could go to the fair on Saturday and thus not disturb the large numbers of men and women who seek the quietness and leisure of their own homes on the Sabbath day.
I feel the same about loudspeakers. I am not prepared to vote on that today because it is an issue which the interdepartmental Committee will have to decide. The Committee will have to decide the place of the Sabbath in this matter of the general nuisance of all noise.

Mr. MacColl: We are in danger of getting confused about the effects of the Amendment because the position is that during the hours of night loudspeaker work would be forbidden. During the


hours of the day all advertising loudspeakers would be forbidden. Later in the Bill we come to a question of whether an exception should be made for perishable commodities, but that will be decided later, and not now, and the terms under which the exception should be granted to perishable commodities is presumably a matter that ought to be discussed later.
What we are discussing now is not the limitations which ought to be put on advertising loudspeakers, because they are prohibited absolutely in the terms of Clause 2 (1, b) and therefore the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) about ice-cream vans do not arise on the Amendment. The question is, should we allow any other form of loudspeaker work apart from commercial advertising?
I do not share the view—which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford shares—that election loudspeaking ought to be forbidden. I fancy my skill on the loudspeaker and I think that by and large I benefited in my constituency by yodelling over the loudspeaker. One benefits provided one does it with reasonable care, with reasonable consideration, and with reasonable political accuracy—qualities which I endeavoured to use in my election campaign.
I should not like to see the complete abolition of the use of loudspeakers for all purposes all the time, but I think that there is probably something to be said for abolishing it on Sundays. I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) about that, but we have been warned, Mr. Speaker, that you would take a poor view of any attempt to reach a compromise on this by a manuscript Amendment, and after the last few days it would be a bold man who resisted your views on that. We are, therefore, faced with the prospect of leaving the position as it is in the Bill, from 9 p.m. until 8 a.m., which I should have thought was not unreasonable as a prohibition for non-commercial loudspeaker work.
Commercial loudspeaker work will come up for discussion in connection with perishable commodities, and I think

that it would be better then to discuss chimes, ice cream, Messrs. Wall, and so on.

Sir K. Joseph: I reinforce what the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said. I advise the House to be cautious about these sweeping changes. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has stressed the power of local authorities to protect their inhabitants by introducing byelaws. The Bill will give them added protection under Clause 1 and the Clause we are now discussing wherever any noise is made such as causes a nuisance.
I must remind the House that total prohibitions are rather dangerous weapons to apply unless there has been long and serious consideration of the side effects. There might be a number of implications to a total ban, quite apart from the political ones that have been raised. I remind the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) that, however much he may disapprove of canvassing by loudspeaker, he would probably be in favour of permitting parties, just before the hour when the polls close on election night—be they local, national, or small bye-elections—to remind electors that they have half an hour or so to go. That sort of power would be totally removed by prohibition, and I suggest that we should be cautious and await the results of more research into this subject.
I do not want to shelter commercial interests behind religious arguments, but there are religious bodies who in certain parts of the country summon people to meetings on Sundays by means of loudspeakers. That is not an argument for necessarily saying that amplifiers should be allowed on Sundays, but it is an argument for saying that we should await the results of the research and examination into noise, and the implications of prohibiting it.
I hesitate to say it, but, as the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) reminded the House, some people welcome notification by amplifier of something that is going on.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) reminded the House, the Wilson Committee has been set up and has started work on this problem. Therefore, we have not the alternative of allowing things to be as


in the Bill and never touching them again. We have the alternative of reconsidering all the aspects of noise with the benefit and advice the Wilson Committee will give the Government and the country. I advise the House to be rather cautious of this drastic change, to await the Report of the Wilson Committee, and in the meantime to leave the Bill as drafted.

Mr. Hamilton: I recognise the force of the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments, but I think that they are arguments in favour of getting rid of the Bill. That seems to be the natural and logical conclusion to draw. I accept the dangers of a total ban, and I can clearly see the implications of it.
I was not aware that people in Britain were summoned to church by loudspeakers.

Sir K. Joseph: To church meetings.

Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry, to church meetings. I feel pretty strongly about Sunday loudspeaker work, not entirely because I represent a Scottish constituency—although the feelings about the Sabbath in Scotland are pretty strong—but because of my unhappy experience as a resident in the inner London area mentioned by the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn). I live in Dulwich near a big London County Council estate and we have to put up with an incessant din from early morning until late at night on Sunday, the day when one wants to sit back and read, or lounge about generally, instead of being a member of a captive audience.
I cannot do anything about it. It is all very well for the Minister and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) saying that one can take it up with one's local authority and with the police, but one knows how apathetic people are about these things. If it involves writing a letter or telephoning people are inclined to suffer in silence. If it were put into a Bill passed by the House that necessity would be obviated.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Speir: If the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) feels that people are apathetic, will he get in touch with the honorary secretary of the Noise Abatement Society, 6, Old Bond Street, who is far from being apathetic? He is very active, and has wonderful

powers of persuasion. I strongly recommend the hon. Member and his constituents to consult him and, if they desire, to join the Noise Abatement Society.

Mr. Hamilton: I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) is a member.

Mr. Speir: I am not; they are extremists.

Mr. Hamilton: It is difficult to goad people into activity, whether the people take the form of a local authority or anybody else. We suffer from the major disease of apathy, and the House must "take the can back" in its legislation. If we insert a provision in the Bill it behoves local authorities to take action if it is abused by ice-cream vendors or anybody else. I have a strong impression that tremendous vested interests are at work here. They have used their influence to dampen down whatever restrictions might be imposed in the Bill.

Mr. Nabarro: I am very much in sympathy with the hon. Member, but is he aware that the Wilson Committee, which is dealing with the question of noise, is prepared to take evidence from Members of Parliament, among other persons? I have already written to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government with a special request to be allowed to appear before the Committee and give personal evidence about noise. Will the hon. Member consider doing something in this matter?

Mr. Hamilton: I shall be very glad to. I hope that that Committee will have in front of it the record of our proceedings today.
I feel very strongly about this matter. I do not think that the hon. Member for Hexham has met our point. He talked about the rural areas, but we are concerned with the urban areas, where this nuisance is a damnable one. I am not prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I do not know whether my hon. Friends are prepared to divide the Committee on it.

Question put, That the words "between the hours of" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 32, Noes 11.

Division No. 98.]
AYES
[1.4 p.m.


Barber, Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bishop, F. P.
Grimond, J.
Rippon, Geoffrey


Brewis, John
Hay, John
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Bullus, Wing commander Eric
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hobson, John
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Cooke, Robert
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Turner, Colin


Currie, G. B. H.
MacColl, James
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Doughty, Charles
McLaren, Martin



Finlay, Graeme
Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gardner, Edward
Peel, John
Mr. Nabarro and Mr. Speir.


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin





NOES


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Mellish, R. J.
Weitzman, David


Darling, George
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Plummer, Sir Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Evans, Albert
Prentice, R. E.
Mr. G. M. Thomson and Mr. Hamilton.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Dr. Alan Glyn: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out "nine" and to insert "six".
I am sure the House will agree that this Amendment is a complete compromise concerning the hours during which a loudspeaker may be used. I think that we should be firm about this, particularly in view of what the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) said about children. It is quite impossible for mothers to get their children to bed, and the matter equally applies to shift workers. They should be given some measure of protection so as to enable them to take their rest in the evening.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the Amendment as being a compromise in this matter.

Sir L. Plummer: When replying to the debate on a previous Amendment the Parliamentary Secretary advised the House not to take any action that would make sweeping changes in the Bill in view of the Wilson Committee's deliberations. This Amendment is not a sweeping change. Indeed, it falls very close indeed to a later Amendment on page 2159 in the name of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir). Therefore, there is nothing revolutionary about it. It just proposes shortening the period in the interest, as the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) has said, of the children. I hope, therefore, that the advice which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to the House on the previous Amendment will not, in his view, apply

to this Amendment, which I hope the House will accept.

Mr. Speir: I would advise the House not to accept the Amendment because I think that it would be too sweeping, in spite of what the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) has said. It would mean, for instance, that there would be no possibility of calling up voters at election times or urging them to vote when coming off trains or on other special occasions.

1.15 p.m.

Sir L. Plummer: Surely the hon. Gentleman heard what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that an exception could quite easily be made in another place.

Mr. Speir: Of course, exceptions can be made quite easily, but it is not so easy to get them through another place and through this place again before the end of the Session.
Another reason why I think that it would be unfortunate to accept the Amendment is that it would mean that loudspeakers could not be used after 6 p.m. in the evening on behalf of charitable organisations and for all sorts of other reasons. They are not used very often.
As the hon. Gentleman said, if a candidate causes a nuisance by the use of a loudspeaker he is more likely to lose votes than to gain them. There are all sorts of functions, particularly in rural areas, such as fetes and other special occasions, where it would not be possible, if the Amendment were accepted, to use any form of amplifier after 6 p.m.
I think that there is a case for limiting the chimes of ice-cream vendors after 6 p.m. and I will, if I may, put down an Amendment to that effect later on. However, I do not think that it would he right at this stage to accept such a sweeping Amendment as this.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is being very difficult on his Bill. I should have thought that the arguments of the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) were overwhelming. We are discussing an Amendment designed primarily to protect the vast numbers of children in our community. Young children—I have two of them—who go to bed quite early are consistently and continually disturbed by this damnable din. All that we are trying to do is to stop it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to persist in this attitude throughout the rest of the Bill because, otherwise, I can see him landing himself into all kinds of difficulties.

Mr. Albert Evans: I am sure that 9 p.m. in the evening is too late to allow loudspeakers to be used. By that time, many mothers have put their children to bed. To allow loudspeakers to be used so late as 9 p.m. is a mistake, and the House now has an opportunity of limiting the time during which they may he used.
Six o'clock might appear to some hon. Members to be unnecessarily early. I have received a letter from the largest ice-cream manufacturers in the country and I regard what they say with some respect because they have gone to great trouble to find a loudspeaker chime for use on their vehicles which is not an annoyance. On this point, the company suggested to me, and to other hon. Members, that 9 p.m. was perhaps too late—it admitted that—and suggested that 6 p.m. was possibly a little early.

Mr. MacColl: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend, but neither do I want him to confuse the House on this question. This Amendment has got nothing to do with ice-cream vendors. It deals with non-commercial, non-advertising loudspeaker work. The question of up to what time commercial loudspeakers should be allowed to be used comes later in the Bill.

Mr. Evans: That is so. I was only using the analogy of loudspeaker chimes

for commercial purposes in order to point out that at least one sizeable company had considered carefully the nuisance which might arise at a particular time of night and it came down in favour of a time between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. It suggested 7 p.m. as a suitable time when the noise should cease. I think there is much sense in that suggestion. Nine o'clock is certainly too late in my opinion for loudspeaker amplification to continue. Six o'clock may be somewhat early to enforce an end to loudspeaker amplification, and possibly 7 p.m. would meet the point.
If it were considered helpful, I or some other hon. Members could, of course with your consent, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, hand in a manuscript Amendment with a view to making the suggested time 7 p.m. I agree with the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) that 9 p.m. is certainly too late from the point of view of sleep for young children which is necessary to ensure their good health.

Mr. Ede: My name is on the back of the Bill. I want to see it enacted although I am not very much concerned one way or the other on these small details, because in matters of this sort if one pleases one set of people one displeases another. They are the kind of matters on which opinion would probably be equally divided.
On this matter of hours, the Bill has just survived. It only needed four people to abstain on the last Division and as far as today was concerned the Bill would have been dead. How many hon. Members are having lunch and how many think that we have now passed the critical stage is a matter for guessing. If the hon. Members cannot reach an agreement and insist on having a Division, it may mean that for the rest of the afternoon we shall be free.

Mr. Nabarro: Oh, no. We shall have the Oil Burners (Standards) Bill to deal with.

Mr. Ede: No we shall not.

Mr. Nabarro: Oh, yes. I am watching the clock carefully, because I have a Bill of equal importance to follow the discussion on this Bill. Is not the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) a little inaccurate in saying that if in a Division the aggregate numbers


of hon. Members in the two Lobbies is not 40 the proceedings come to an end? On the contrary. If there are less than 40 hon. Members, a count is called, and then if 40 hon. Members are not mustered the Bill falls. But the following Bill does not fall.

Dr. A. Glyn: In view of the fact that the discussion on the Bill is running late, and to save the Bill, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, at the end to insert:
and any road or path on a public authority's housing estate".
To many hon. Members this may seem a small point but hon. Members who live in London will realise that it is extremely important. Vast areas in London have not been taken over by the public authorities, and an enormous number of roads and streets which until recently were not subject to police control would be completely outside the scope of the Bill. If the Amendment were accepted the provisions of the Bill would become effective throughout practically the whole of London.
Local authority estates in London cover large areas. Some time ago I had considerable difficulty in getting them policed and it was only because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was extremely co-operative and kind that London police were able to control these vast areas. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment, because it will extend the provisions of the Bill to the areas which I have mentioned.

Mr. Speir: I sympathise with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn). He raised this point in Committee and I hoped that I had satisfied him. In London, at any rate, private streets are generally open to the public and if they are so open and if my hon. Friend will look at line 10, on page 3, he will see a definition of "street" which means
a highway and any other road, footway, square or court which is for the time being open to the public.
If such places are not open to the public, if they are private property, then the

normal means of protecting the property from trespassers and others should be adequate to deal with this problem. In any event, I feel that the definition of "public authority" would be extremely difficult to enforce. I think it a vague phrase and I should be reluctant to see the Amendment added to the Bill.

Mr. MacColl: The difficulty is that there may be places in which salesmen should not enter, such as the courtyard of a housing estate, and where, because they are trespassing, they would be exempt from the provisions of the byelaw. Were they obeying the law and in an ordinary public street, not necessarily one maintained at public expense, they would come within the provisions of the Bill. But if they forced their way into a courtyard of a block of flats, for example, they might be protected. I think that is what he hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) has in mind and I share his misgivings. We must be careful that protection is given to people who live in blocks of flats of that kind.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: On reading the text of the Bill it appeared to me that the provisions were adequate, but having listened to what the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) had to say and what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), I am now in some doubt. Surely this is a matter on which the House is entitled to receive guidance from the Minister.

Sir K. Joseph: Here there is a difficulty, because we must be careful not to intrude upon private property, whether it be local authority property or property owned by a private individual. A landlord can make any legitimate regulations which seem fit to him in order to protect his tenants. I am advised that normal courtyards and public means of access into local authority blocks of flats or housing estates would come within the provisions of the Bill.
If hon. Gentlemen say that there are passageways and corridors which do not come within the provisions of the Bill then definitely they are within the control of the landlord and he can make suitable regulations. So here we have three sets of protection for the tenant.


First, there are the local byelaws which local inhabitants can ask the local authority to make; secondly, there are the provisions of this Bill and, thirdly, for the private parts of local authority premises there are landlord regulations. So I think that the understandable concern of the hon. Gentleman may be satisfied by the definition within the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Speir: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out from beginning to "as" in line 20 and insert:

(b) for communicating with persons on a vessel for the purpose of directing the movement of that or any other vessel;
(c) if the loudspeaker forms part of a public telephone system;
(d) if the loudspeaker—

(i) is in or fixed to a vehicle, and
(ii) is operated solely for the entertainment of or for communicating with the driver or a passenger of the vehicle or, where the loudspeaker is or forms part of the horn or similar warning instrument of the vehicle, solely for giving warning to other traffic, and
(iii) is so operated".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think It would be convenient if the House discussed, with this proposed Amendment, the three Amendments to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), which are not selected for a Division, namely, to leave out "operated" and insert "intended to operate "at the beginning of paragraph (d, ii); to insert "is being so operated" at the end of the same paragraph, and to leave out paragraph (d, iii).

Mr. Speir: I wish to ask the House to accept this rearrangement because of the points made during the Committee stage discussions when my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) drew attention to the fact that there are a number of people who are not Crown servants and who are concerned with the movement of ships. They may come within the provisions of the Clause unless this exemption is provided. Therefore, this introduces an additional saving for loudspeakers and loud hailers used for addressing ships from places on land which would otherwise fall within the definition of a street in Clause 2 (1).

1.30 p.m.

Secondly, the Amendment would cover the loudspeakers which, I am informed, may be introduced by the Postmaster-General in telephone kiosks some time in the not-too-distant future as an assistance to people who are deaf. Thirdly, it covers transmitters and receivers used on motor-cycle combinations by such organisations as the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club. I therefore hope that the Amendment will be acceptable to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir L. Plummer: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 30 to 39.

Mr. Speir: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Would it be in order at the same time to discuss with this Amendment in my name: in line 31 after first "loudspeaker", insert:
between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening of the same day".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I am obliged to the hon. Member. I think it would be convenient to discuss that Amendment with the proposed Amendment and also the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton): in line 32, leave out paragraph (a).

Sir L. Plummer: It is quite clear that I am trying to exclude absolutely from the Bill privilege given to those people who convey a perishable commodity for human consumption. This is where we get into the realm of the ice-cream vendor, because that has become, as it were, the privileged totem before which we have all been bowing. It is the existence of the nuisance of these vendors who go round with vans and give audible warning of the fact that they are present.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) made some play with the very considerable efforts made by one firm of Ice-cream manufacturers who say that they modulate the tones of the chimes in such a way as to make them practically unobjectionable. That firm has circulated to all hon. Members a memorandum in which it says that the tune which is played is composed of "dulcimer sounds". Whatever" dulcimer sounds" are, I do not know.

Mr. Nabarro: Douce.

Sir L. Plummer: A sweet sound?

Mr. Nabarro: Euphonious.

Sir L. Plummer: I suppose it is a case of beauty being in the ear of the beholder. The firm says that a sequence of notes was composed by a well-known musician. To help us, his name is given, but I do not propose to repeat the name because I wish to do him no harm whatever. The object is to produce a melodious sound which is in no way raucous or annoying, but no firm can say that a noise is in no way raucous or annoying. A noise acceptable to someone walking along the street may be raucous and annoying to someone who is trying to sleep. A noise which may be acceptable to someone who is fit and well is raucous and annoying to someone who is ill. A noise which may be perfectly acceptable to a mother while she is doing her housework, is absolute hell for her when she is trying to put the children to sleep.
The fact is that we have now got into the habit of accepting such a variety of noises in our streets. I hope the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), when he gives evidence before the Wilson Committee, will cast his argument as wide as he possibly can in order to cover these multitudinous noises. We are beginning to accept the right—and the hon. Member for Hexham seems to be attempting to enshrine this right—of some people to assault the ears of the people to whom they want to sell their goods. They are taking advantage of what the advertising profession calls "the captive audience", the audience which cannot get away.
When I was in America a few years ago there was a great attempt to have advertising on the suburban—or, as they call them, the "commuter"—trains, in buses, and places like Grand Central Station. The New Yorkers, who are a much more sturdy and independent race than many Londoners, said that they would not permit the captive audience to be treated in that way. The one great thing which can be said for commercial television is that one can switch it off, but one cannot switch off the noise made by the vendor who, whatever he is selling, is determined to make as much noise as he can, and who gets away with

it—this is what has to be remembered —in the pursuit of his trade.
The argument that these noises practically do not exist is really quite ridiculous. The noises produced for the sole purpose of advertising the goods. It is like a mute man trying to speak if the advertiser says that practically no one can hear what he is saying, or that it is so melodious that it does not disturb anyone. These noises are designed to disturb people. They are designed to strike a chord of desire in the heart of someone so that he will rush out from what he is doing and go down the street or into the courtyard to buy.

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers: How does a cacophonous sound strike a chord of desire?

Sir L. Plummer: It has the same effect as the effect on Pavlov's dogs. It will be remembered that the dogs salivate at the ringing of a bell. A great many people salivate at the ringing of ice-cream chimes and the desire for ice-cream is created.
In a speech I made a little time ago, I mentioned the fact that in Huyton, near Liverpool, there is great objection to what is going on. I have a letter from a man living there who says:
One firm has started house-to-house hawking, quietly, in the time-honoured way; this gives no offence, at least they know where to call, and no man should find his livelihood suffers as house-to-house hawking takes in more people and captures more business".
This development of noise is something which is comparatively new. The people who are using it say so. They announce that it is very successful. That I am not denying. All I deny is the announcement of people who think they are doing well by it and insist on doing it. It is a comparatively new development which is arising and there is a great deal of opposition to and criticism of it. I doubt if many hon. Members in this House as a result of this Bill have not had letters complaining about what is going on in their constituencies, particularly those who represent urban and Metropolitan constituencies such as mine.
At the risk of wearying the House, I am afraid that I shall have to give some quotations from letters I have received, but, before doing so, I want to make it quite clear that I grant to Messrs. Walls that theirs is a modulated sound—I shall


not call it music, but a sound. If it were that and no more, if Messrs. Walls' vans went down a street once a day playing this tune, I agree that it would be tolerable, but down our streets day after day there are going, not one of these vans, but five or six, seven and, in some cases, ten. They are following each other down the street, each getting more noisy than the one before. We had a man in Deptford called Rossi going down the streets and Deptford Borough Council is going after him because he is the noisiest of the lot. It is a sort of rising crescendo of noise which goes on particularly on Sundays.
A man wrote from Southgate:
Vendors were still ringing chimes in this neighbourhood at 10 o'clock yesterday, Sunday
That was 10 o'clock at night. From Ruislip came a letter to say:
We are visited by about six of these ice-cream vans continually.
From Chislehurst:
Every weekend we are forced to listen to the continuous noise of these vans. If Mr. Speir thinks that the sound is innocuous, he should listen to it from early Sunday morning until dusk.
From Edgware:
On Sundays at 11.30 a.m. we hear them at least 12 times in succession in half an hour; 3 times in one street not more than 200 yards long. In the afternoon (Sundays) it starts again at 2.45 p.m. then 5 p.m., when people are resting, not to mention the sick and aged. Although I am totally deaf in one ear I can hear it two streets away… I spent a time in Edgware Hospital last year and the patients were unable to sleep when the chimes were played.
From Bedford:
In this town they follow each other round the streets to the great disturbance of aged folk and especially to those who work at night and sleep during the day.
From Bradford:
This is a new estate, privately built, and the tenants are working people. Quite a few of these tenants, like my husband, are forced to work on a permanent night shift… When my husband comes home in the morning, has a meal, and retires about 9 a.m., he is no sooner asleep than he is rudely awakened by a bread salesman, who presses his hooter so often and so loudly that I'm sure it could be heard a mile away….
Another letter comes from Islington, but I will not quote that. They all follow each other in a perfect pattern.
The people who want to permit these noises to continue make no reference to the fact that many people work at night.
Many Londoners work at night for our safety and our comfort—newspapermen, policemen, railway workers and so on. They are entitled to the protection of the House to see that they get as much quiet as they possibly can in the daytime. Hon. Members who have been on all-night sittings and who have tried to sleep in the daytime will know what it is like. The ordinary noises are bad enough, but when there is a series of these people making their noises one after another down the street, sleep becomes impossible. When men have to change their shifts, as many constantly do—they are sometimes on night shift and sometimes on day shift—it takes them a little time to get accustomed to having to sleep in the daytime in any case. It is an infliction upon them that they should be treated in this way.
I know that the hon. Member for Hexham has had ice-cream vendors in mind, but there are others, too. Travelling shops are becoming quite popular. There are "gents" going round the city evading having to pay the rates when renting a shop and using travelling shops. They have only to carry some perishable commodity, butter or eggs, or some milk, and they will be covered by the Clause and able to start blowing their musical instruments.
I see no reason why this should be any exception. I do not see why it should be right for us to say, "This is a piecemeal Bill for the abatement of noise; nevertheless, we will do what we can to cut it down, but not for someone who is going round selling perishable articles."
It does not matter what the article is. Making this noise is an invasion of people's privacy and an infliction on a captive audience of a noise from which they cannot escape. Pending the decision of the Wilson Committee—and I am certain that it will have to deal with this problem—the best thing the hon. Member for Hexham can do to try to preserve people's peace and quiet is to accept the Amendment.

1.45 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I do not wish to detain the House very long. The crux of the whole situation is that the object of the Amendment is to ensure that no category of vendor is given some special


privilege. I am not against ice-cream merchants or anybody else, or vested interests, but I am against giving one category of vendor some specific protection in an Act of Parliament in order to increase his sales or some other financial advantage.
The Clause probably hits the ice-cream people most. Everybody likes ice cream, but the extension of this practice in the last ten years has become obnoxious and throughout London, as the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said, we are also having mobile shops which do not pay rates. I am not against mobile shops, but I am against giving them some specific extra protection which is not given to the man who sells paraffin. Why should the man who sells perishable goods be given a greater measure of protection than the paraffin dealer? It is useless to say that perishables have to be sold on the same day, because, with modern methods of refrigeration, there is no substance in that argument.
What we are trying to do is to protect all types of people, particularly shift workers, as the hon. Member for Deptford said. I am prepared to go to the extent of saying that in London we have a special case and it may be that in small villages these vans are not so obnoxious because they do not appear so frequently. But in London, in which I am especially interested, this practice has become an absolute menace. This form of trading in our society is growing and I cannot see that these people have any objection to competing on equal terms with any other vendor of any other commodity.
I see no reason why, if a person wishes to buy ice cream or any other perishable commodity, he cannot arrange that the van should come round a specific time so that everybody on the estate or in the road can know full well that that commodity is available for sale in the street. Nor is there any reason why we should not have the arrangement which Carter Paterson had before the war of having notices in windows so that the vans can call at a particular time and the salesman can knock at the door and sell his goods.
I object to the Clause, not because I am against ice-cream people, but because I do not think it right to give

special exemption to one category of vendor while leaving another at a disadvantage.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I support the Amendment. Indeed, I was rather puzzled that there should be any need to move such an Amendment. I am as puzzled as the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) that the Clause should contain such an illogical exemption. When I first heard that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) had had the good fortune to be successful in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills—

Mr. Speir: Not the good fortune.

Mr. Thomson: —when I heard that the hon. Member was to go on from abolishing litter to abolishing noise, one of my immediate reactions was that that was fine and that we were about to get rid of a terrible, commercial jingle-jangle which had been growing steadily in most urban areas in the last few years.
I am puzzled that this exemption should have been inserted and, to judge by the amount of mail I have received, my constituents are equally puzzled. This is a considerable problem on the housing estates of the City of Dundee and in many other cities and industrial towns in Scotland.
It became an important issue in our recent municipal election campaigns and one notable municipal election meeting in the City of Dundee was attended by all three candidates for the ward and they all enthusiastically pledged themselves to take steps to abolishing loudspeakers on commercial vehicles, particularly chimes on ice-cream vans. This was perhaps because their speeches were drowned in the middle of the proceedings by the ice-cream vans passing.
On the housing estates in Dundee this is a considerable problem. On large housing estates sales of ice cream are enormous. One town councillor tells me that an ice-cream van can gross about £2,000 a week on Dundee housing estates. Therefore, a very keen ice-cream war is going on between different vans. In those circumstances, the suggestion made by one ice-cream firm that it is not putting forth any specially unmelodious chimes does not bear much examination, because the air is filled with competing sets of chimes. I am


told that many of them are excerpts from various notable pieces of classical music. This might do great credit to the cultural interests of ice-cream vendors in Dundee if one did not realise that they use these themes because they are now free from copyright. Now that the d'Oyly Carte operas are becoming free from copyright, we can expect to get some of the tunes from them being played by ice-cream vans.
This practice is not confined to ice-cream vans. It has spread to other things. It is time that it was stopped. In this estimable Bill it is difficult to see any logical reason for giving an exemption to ice cream and other perishable commodities whereas the rag-and-bone man or person selling paraffin is prevented from using a loudspeaker for purposes of salesmanship.
I have a vested interest in this subject. As the father of two small children I occasionally—perhaps too occasionally—have the duty of trying to put them to bed. Anyone who has that experience will know exactly how I feel when I am just getting them off, having told them a nice goodnight story, and along come the chimes of an ice-cream van. I had one case of absolute effrontery when the ice-cream van played a set of chimes which came from the nursery rhyme "Rock-a-bye baby". It is great nuisance to the parents of young children. It is an equally great nuisance, as the hon. Member for Clapham rightly said, to the very considerable section of the community who are on shift work. They suffer from great inconvenience during the day and the evening when they are sleeping after regular hours.
I object to the chimes of ice-cream vans particularly because they make a commercial attack on children. We live in a salesmanship civilisation which in many of its aspects is vulgar and squalid, but we have to put up with it. I always feel particularly sensitive about the skills of salesmanship, the carefully thought up sequence of notes which makes people think about the delights of ice cream, being used on children. They are particularly vulnerable to this sort of thing. Apart from ending the nuisance of the noise, it would be a very good thing if ice-cream vendors were prevented from using this technique of trying to push up their sales. It might

make a modest contribution to the dental health of our children, because nothing causes dental decay more quickly than the tremendously increased consumption of ice-cream lollipops.
I return to the main point made by the hon. Member for Clapham. It is difficult to see any logical reason for discriminating in favour of ice-cream vans and other vans selling perishable commodities. I hope that I do not have a suspicious mind, but the only reason I can think of for this exemption being in the Bill is that we have been subjected in the House to much pressure from ice-cream interests. The brief has already been quoted from. We have been accustomed over many years in the House to the efforts of the beer lobby. That is always Very active when any major interests are affected by our legislation. It seems as if one of the signs of our new affluent society is that we are now to have to face up to the pressures of the ice-cream lobby. I take this opportunity at the very beginning of those pressures to say to the ice-cream lobby that we shall not discriminate in its favour.

Mr. Speir: I sympathise with a very great deal of what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has said. I readily admit to the House that this aspect of the noise problem has in recent months caused me more trouble, concern and worry than any other aspect. What these three Amendments boil down to is whether the electric chimes of the ice-cream salesman and a few others in mobile vans shall be allowed to continue and, if so, between what hours of the day or evening. It is a very difficult problem to decide, and I will explain why it is so difficult.
I referred to this problem on Second Reading and we discussed it at considerable length in Committee. I have a certain schizophrenia about this problem; I can so easily see both sides of the argument, but it would be wrong to suggest that the excessive playing of chimes is not a nuisance. I readily and freely admit that chimes can be an infernal nuisance, but it would be equally wrong to suggest that they cannot serve any useful purpose.
In this case, more perhaps than in any other case, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the public does not


like such chimes, presumably it will not continue day after day, week after week, to patronise the vans which play them. Yet we know that millions upon millions of portions of ice-cream are sold from ice-cream vans week after week.
Some large housing estates are very far removed from shops. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not here, because he said that one could keep ice-cream in a refrigerator over the weekend. Even in these days when we have never had it so good, very often refrigerators are not found in council houses.

Mr. John Diamond: Even if refrigerators are found in council houses, it is very difficult to keep ice cream for more than a very short period in the condition in which it is enjoyed.

Mr. Speir: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) for emphasising that point. My point is that mobile sellers of ice cream play a useful part in the life of the community.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why on that argument he is preventing in his Bill the use of loudspeakers by vans selling paraffin?

Mr. Speir: That is another aspect of the problem, but paraffin can be stored. It can be bought at any time. The city worker returning on a hot summer's evening from a hard day's work likes to be able to have ice cream delivered to the door. That is an argument in its favour up to a certain limit.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East was less than just when he imputed certain doubtful motives for the inclusion of this exemption in the Bill. I will tell him quite definitely that I have no interest whatsoever—no shares and no shadow of interest—in Messrs. Walls or any organisation selling ice cream. I have no desire to protect these or any other type of high-pressure salesmen.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I assure the hon. Member that I had no intention of imputing any motives to him. I know that he is anxious—in my view, he is a little over-anxious—to achieve a compromise in an agreeable Bill. I was saying that ice-cream companies have been bringing heavy pressure to bear on all of us in the House.

Mr. Speir: That is true, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining that. The fact remains that I have not put this exemption in to please the ice-cream companies. I have put it in because I think that a complete ban would deprive a large section of the public, especially in summer time, of a greatly appreciated service.
Nevertheless, if these chimes are overplayed or too many of them are played they cause an acute annoyance. Many local authorities, local authority associations, residents' and ratepayers' associations have approached me on this aspect of the problem and pointed that fact out. They pointed out particularly, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East pointed out, that these chimes can be an infernal nuisance in the evenings when children on residential estates have gone to bed or ought to have gone to bed.
For that reason, I recommend to the House that we should have a compromise, not to impose a complete ban on the playing of these chimes all day and all night, as I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) might like to do, but to adopt the Amendment in my name, which would ban the chimes completely between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m.
Under Clause 2, if during the permitted hours the chimes are played to excess or are operated so as to give reasonable cause for annoyance to persons living in the vicinity, there can be a prosecution. That is an additional safeguard. It is one that may have escaped the attention of the House, but it means that, even if the Bill as now drafted comes into operation, these salesmen have been warned that they must be careful and not cause annoyance to persons living in the vicinity. If they abuse that privilege they can be prosecuted.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Am I right in saying that under the Bill as it stands at the moment no loudspeaker can be operated between nine in the evening and eight the following morning? That is under Clause 2 (1, a). That governs subsection (3) does it not?

Mr. Speir: Yes. Again, if the present provisions of the Bill are not enough and there is a special problem in certain


areas, I think that it is up to the local authorities to take special action to cope with that special problem. That problem exists in certain urban areas, particularly so in the Metropolitan district, but it does not exist to the same extent throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain. Therefore, in those areas where the problem is a special one the local authorities should adopt one of the model byelaws more stringent than this Clause, such as the "noisy hawkers" byelaw. That will give them still further protection and should enable them adequately to deal with the problem.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) will not press their Amendments. I equally hope that the House may find my compromise Amendment reasonable and acceptable. Then, in the light of further experience of how this Bill if it becomes an Act works, we shall hope that the inter-Departmental Committee now looking at the problem will give the matter further attention and, if necessary, come forward with recommendations for dealing with it in a different way.

Mr. W. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) is trying to be helpful, but I hope that he realises what his compromise means. It means that these people can start operating at 8 o'clock on a Sunday morning. I would certainly take the strongest possible objection to that. He talks about the Amendment seeking to prohibit the sale of ice cream, but it does nothing of the kind. All that it does is to seek to prohibit the accompanying noise. That is what we are objecting to. The ice-cream merchant may say that this will have a deleterious effect on his sales, but I do not believe that. One knows how the presence of an ice-cream vendor, particularly on a housing estate, pentrates round like the wind, without any chimes being necessary.
I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) said in his speech. Before I refer to what he said about the children and so on, I should like to say this. Under the terms of the Bill every merchant retailing food would be excluded, not only the ice-cream merchants. Every retailer of every foodstuff would be excluded, because it is reasonable to say that every

food is a perishable commodity. The Bill is capable of very wide definition. The man who sells paraffin sometimes sells other things which might well be perishable. Is he thereby excluded under the Bill from selling those things. One would like to know, because this is a very wide exclusion.
Further, under the Bill every trader would be allowed to make as much noise as he likes between eight in the morning and nine o'clock at night.

Mr. Speir: Not as much noise as he likes. He has to be very careful to see that he does not come under subsection (3, b).

Mr. Hamilton: I withdraw that. I would remind the hon. Member that in Committee he said that he wanted, in the first instance, to prohibit the chimes of the ice-cream vendors. He said.
When I was originally drawing up the Bill I intended to prohibit the chimes of ice-cream vendors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 1lth May, 1960: c. 29.]
What occasioned his change of mind? He went on to give certain reasons, but it was quite clear, and one does not want to impute to him any unworthy motives, that the inference of his speech was that the "brain washers" outside had got to work on him. They certainly did. He himself said that he went to Walls at their request and was shown Peter Yorke's compositions and asked if he would like to hear them. He was very impressed by what they call the electric dulcimer, and one can imagine the sales talk that went on: "This instrument plays music composed by a well-known composer. It goes on for four seconds, then automatically cuts out, there is three minutes absolute silence and off it goes again."
If that were all that happened that would be tolerable, but we may get five or six of these firms operating on the same estate and then the music is not so attractive. Where I live in Dulwich it is everything from Popeye to Paderewski. Nothing is barred, and it goes on incessantly for seven days a week. I have heard the Walls' chimes and I think there is nothing very objectionable about them. I suppose that the logical conclusion of the hon. Gentleman's argument in Committee would have been to insert a specific exclusion and to have mentioned Walls


by name, because the inference of his speech was that Walls are all right; it is the other fellows that are wrong.
The hon. Gentleman said that considerable trouble had been taken by Walls to see that the chimes did not cause nuisance. I wonder to what trouble they have gone to find out? I wonder whether they went round calling at the doors of householders—

Mr. Diamond: Yes.

Mr. Hamilton: We will deal with that public opinion poll in a moment. The hon. Member for Hexham went on to say:
I can imagine that other operators do cause annoyance☠"—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee C, 11th May, 1960: c. 29.]
apparently, Wall's do not. Here we have Walls trying to tell the House that if we would only give them a monopoly, everything would be all right; there would be no noise—indeed, the British people would become a nation of music lovers if we would only let Messrs. Walls operate in this way.
In the same speech, the hon. Member foresaw legislation to put a total prohibition on these chimes or instruments. That means that if the legislation foreseen by him is enacted, Messrs. Walls will also be excluded.
When the Independent Television Bill was passing through the House, the hon. Gentleman and his party deliberately sought to limit the amount of advertising put into our homes in that way, and deliberately amended the Bill to that effect, although it lies within the power of the listener to turn a knob and switch off the set. In the present case, however, people cannot just switch off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) says, here is a captive audience. It therefore behoves this House to protect people from the kind of abuse that now goes on, and to say that Walls are not abusing people's comfort is no defence for making a general exclusion of those who sell perishable commodities.
The hon. Gentleman referred to our Amendment as being an infringement of the liberty of the subject. Every bit of legislation is some infringement on some-

one's liberty to do something or other. The very purpose of our legislation is to tell people what will happen to them if they do certain things, and if they are thereby excluded from doing what they otherwise would have done, that can be argued to be an infringement of their liberty. If the hon. Gentleman wants to convince the House that his case is just, he should not use that kind of argument. He is there on very unsound ground.
We are being subjected to this amount of cacophony, and the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and his compromise Bill do nothing to ally the anxieties of people, particularly in the new towns. The new towns have in them a very large proportion of children. They are fair game for the people we are trying to get at, and I appeal to him, on that ground if on no other, to look at the matter again.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I should like to make two points that so far seem to have escaped notice. First, it would be fair to say that one difficulty is that the difference in the problem as between rural and urban areas is greater than anyone has acknowledged. Speaking for the rural areas, I should say that the electrical hooter is a tremendous aid to selling ice cream, without which the van will not be seen or heard, or known to be in the district, but it can be a great nuisance in the council estate. There, I can see no solution but the use of a byelaw.

2.15 p.m.

The second point to which I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members opposite who are concerned about the nuisance in urban areas is that these vendors use the chimes to draw attention to themselves. I can think of many less attractive ways to which they might resort to attract attention were they denied this particular method.

It would, of course, be illegal and he would eventually be caught up with, but I can think of an ingenious ice-cream vendor working out a cacophony on his horn that would be quite unmistakable in the district in which he wished to attract attention. I think that that is a very real danger if all ice-cream chimes are silenced, and we should give the matter further thought before coming to a decision on the Amendment. A cacophony of chimes has been mentioned,


but equally bad would be a conspiracy by hooter, and that should be given attention.

Dr. Alan Glyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In view of the lateness of the hour, and of what has already been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, that is not agreed.

Sir L. Plummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I moved the Amendment, and I have no intention of withdrawing it.

Mr. Diamond: I hope that I shall not be accused of taking part in the forthcoming American election if I start by saying, "I like ice", and I suspect that a lot of other people like ice cream also. What we do not like is noise, and we have to try to discover a satisfactory middle course between allowing people to satisfy a very natural and wholesome desire to eat ice cream and preventing people's ears being unduly assaulted. There is nothing moral or high principled in this; it is purely a question of satisfying the stomach and, at the same time, not dissatisfying the ear.
I sit for Gloucester, where there is a large Walls ice-cream factory. As there has been an undertone in the remarks of some of my hon. Friends directed against the commercialisation of ice-cream, let me make it quite clear that I am delighted that one of the major methods of solving the unemployment situation that beset Gloucester was the building of a large new Walls factory. I am also delighted to say that there are at least 350 women in my constituency, who would otherwise be out of work, busily engaged in making a commodity that most people enjoy consuming. I therefore hope that we shall not diverge too much on the antipathy towards people selling their produce.
I have, of course, declared an interest, and it will probably be alleged that I am being subjected to pressure from Walls, and that it is because of that that I speak as I do. That is not the case, as I shall explain when a little later I explain another pressure to which I have been subjected. First, however, let me give a few of my reasons for being satis-

fied that Walls' case is a good one—whether applying to Walls or anyone else does not matter.
It is wrong to say that the urban area is so prejudicially affected as to need special protection. That is just not the case. Let us, first, take the case of the Gloucester Corporation Bill. I am in favour of whatever it does. It was promoted by the Gloucester Corporation, on which there is a very substantial Labour majority. That Private Bill, promoted by a Labour council in 1958, contained a Clause almost identical with this Clause as it now stands, permitting this kind of activity.
The Labour majority on the corporation 'were satisfied, in that highly urban area and before the arrival of Walls' ice-cream factory, that this method of selling should be permitted, because they were satisfied, as I am, that, far from its being an infernal nuisance, the desire of most of the people living there wanted to be made aware in this way, which is much better than most alternative ways, that ice-cream was for sale—

Sir L. Plummer: It is interesting to know that the Labour authority at Gloucester passed a byelaw permitting this practice. I represent a Labour constituency. My local authority has 33 Labour members and three Conservative members. It has passed a byelaw that does its best to prohibit the sounding of chimes in a way that would be permitted by this Bill. Therefore, the fact that one Labour council takes one view and another Labour council takes another does not go very far to proving the case presented by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Diamond: I do not know the statistics. Neither of us knows how many Bills have been introduced one way or the other. I am merely stating the fact that this was the view of my constituency. I was not intending to make a political point. The Gloucester County Council, on which there is a large Conservative majority, also had a Bill before this House in 1956, and in that Bill the identical Clause was inserted and the identical provision made.
However, neither of these facts is the telling factor. The telling factor is the fact that these people have to sell their ice-cream, and if they were to adopt an unpleasant method of selling it their sales


would go down. The last thing they want to do is to irritate the public. What they want to do, above everything else, is to be acceptable to the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) spoke about the difficulty he experiences with his children. Of course, I can understand only too well what he is talking about. His children, like many others, like ice-cream very much. I cannot see why we should stop people satisfying a simple desire of that kind. It may be unfortunate if a bell is sounded at a particular moment, but we must look at the overriding fact that there are millions who like ice-cream.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: My children like ice-cream. They inherited their liking for ice-cream from me. As a child, I ate large quantities of it, and I still do. But as a child I did not need somebody to come round and play tunes to tell me where to get the ice-cream.

Mr. Diamond: I am satisfied that if this opportunity were barred to ice cream vendors, there are many other ways of selling ice cream which would be far more unsatisfactory and would cause more nuisance. I cannot think of any satisfactory alternative method of selling ice cream and letting people know that it is for sale.
I speak of a commodity which has to be eaten in its original state. After it has been in a refrigerator for a short time, it becomes a sloppy mess and nobody wants to eat a sloppy mess. I suggest that ice cream is not only perishable; it is highly perishable in its original state, in which it is intended to be consumed. Therefore, we shall inevitably get this kind of situation. The telling argument is that people all over the country are satisfied to be informed in this manner that ice cream is available for sale.

Mr. W. Hamilton: How does my hon. Friend know?

Mr. Diamond: Because the sales go up day after day and week after week. The reason for an additional factory in Gloucester is that more and more people want to consume more and more ice cream, and if the manufacturers were not selling it they would not be making it.

Mr. Hamilton: That may account for the popularity of ice cream but it does not account for the popularity or otherwise of the noise.

Mr. Diamond: The popularity of the noise has also been inquired into, as I am trying to explain. My own city considered this matter most carefully in the interests of the inhabitants. Gloucester County did the same thing. If my hon. Friend will read the memorandum he will see the number of cases in which the matter has been thoroughly investigated.

Mr. Hamilton: By whom?

Mr. Diamond: It was thoroughly investigated by Walls. Who else does my hon. Friend expect to investigate it?

Mr. Hamilton: I would not expect anybody else to investigate it, and in that case I would not expect any other result than the result that has been given.

Mr. Diamond: If my hon. Friend is not prepared to accept the result of any investigation there is no point in my quoting figures to him. So far as my limited experience goes, I have not received any objections. Some hon. Members may say that they have been inundated with letters, but I have received nothing which indicates to me other than the opinion which I am firmly convinced is the right one, namely, that a fantastic majority of the people like to know when the ice cream man is coming round.

Sir L. Plummer: I did not say that hon. Members had been inundated. I said there were very few Members, particularly those living in urban areas, who had not received letters from people saying how much they objected. I am not trying to exaggerate the importance of this point.
The other point I want to make is that I am not denying that sales of ice cream have increased, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend has any statistics to show whether they have increased in vans or in shops?

Mr. Diamond: That would not help. The sales are increasing all round. It depends upon whichever method the company uses to deliver its commodity. All I am saying is that it is obvious


that this is one of the most satisfactory methods of bringing to the attention of the public the fact that this commodity is available. The public like it, and if they did not like it they would object strenuously. Apart from that, they have said that they want it.
The hon. Member for Hexham has said that these noises are an infernal nuisance, but surely an infernal nuisance is covered by the common law of the country, quite apart from the Bill. There is no question of protecting people against an infernal nuisance. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I should like to come to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hexham—

Mr. Speir: In view of the conflict of interest here, and because everybody wants the Bill to become law. I am prepared not to proceed with my Amendment, and ask hon. Members with other Amendments dealing with this aspect of the problem not to proceed with theirs. Then we could look at the matter again and consider all the evidence before the Bill went to another place. Although I cannot give an undertaking, I will certainly ascertain the view of the House and try to incorporate some other Clause to deal with this aspect of the problem in another place.

Sir L. Plummer: I want to understand the hon. Gentleman clearly. Does that mean that before the Bill goes to another place he is going to have discussions with a view to trying to find between us some phrase that will bridge the opposing points of view?

Mr. Speir: This is a compromise Measure and it would be my intention to try to reach an equitable, fair and honest compromise. It is a difficult problem, but that would certainly be my aim, as it has been throughout the whole of the drafing of the Bill.

Mr. Ede: Do I understand that the hon. Member does not intend to ask for a Third Reading today?

Mr. Speir: No, Sir, the intention is to ask for a Third Reading.

Sir L. Plummer: I want the hon. Member for Hexham to understand that we on these benches, too, have been showing willing on the Bill. It was not our desire that the proceedings on the Bill should have continued until half-past two.

In view, not of the undertaking, but of the offer made by the hon. Member for Hexham, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speir: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out "an amplifier or similar instrument" and to insert:
a megaphone and any other device for amplifying sound".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment can be discussed the next two, in page 4, line 13, to leave out from "council" to end of line 14; and in line 14 at end insert:
(6) In this section "loudspeaker" includes a megaphone and any other device for amplifying sound

Mr. Speir: This Amendment merely makes more precise the definition of a loudspeaker for the purpose of Clause 2, and therefore I hope that it will be acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Speir: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I need not emphasise again that this is a compromise Measure. Although it may well abate noise, it is not intended to abolish noise. It certainly has not been drafted so as to bring about anything in the nature of an angry silence. I read that in a certain village in the south of England recently people were much disturbed by the continual song of the cuckoo all through the night. The Bill will not help the villagers there.

Sir L. Plummer: One could shoot the cuckoo, but one could not shoot the ice-cream man.

Mr. Speir: The Bill will not cover noise made by parrots, about which I had a complaint from an ex-Royal Navy captain. It does not cover such things as Hovercraft, unless the Hovercraft is regarded as a ship, not an aeroplane. It will not even cover such a common thing as the domestic vacuum-cleaner. Quite frankly and honestly, the Bill is a stopgap Measure, a stop-gap until the Government's Committee has been able to study the problem in detail and, after making its researches, bring forward recommendations.
Nevertheless, the Bill is not a Bill to be sneered at. It is all-embracing so far


as it will make all unreasonable and unnecessary noise a statutory offence and, as such, open to be dealt with under the Public Health Act, 1936. Above all, and quite apart from the actual provisions of it, I hope that the mere fact that Parliament sees fit to pass a Noise Abatement Bill will of itself tend to make everyone—the public, the Government, the police and the courts —more noise conscious than hitherto.
I hope that the Bill will make people more thoughtful and less of a nuisance to their friends and neighbours. I hope that the manufacturers of all kinds of machines and the local authorities, perhaps through their associations, will consider how, with a little ingenuity and with the use of a little insulation, they can make their machines and their houses quieter than they are now. If that is the eventual outcome of the Bill, it will certainly not have been in vain.
Whatever the outcome, I must express my gratitude to all those many people, both within the House and outside, who have helped and encouraged me in the drafting of the Bill. Though small, it has been a difficult and somewhat complex Measure to draft. I do not suggest that it has been as difficult and complex as the Finance Bill, but it has at any rate called for considerable care and thought. In spite of some of the remarks which have been made today, it is very largely an agreed Measure, although it is complex and, of course, in certain aspects, it arouses quite strong feelings.
I am very grateful for the assistance I have had from the Parliamentary Secretary, from his permanent officials, and from Parliamentary counsel. There have been many people behind the scenes helping in the preparation of the Bill. I thank especially the Noise Abatement Society and its energetic and enthusiastic secretary. As I said earlier today, I am not a member of the Noise Abatement Society. I thought it better to be free from any pressure groups, whether Messrs. T. Wall and Sons or the Noise Abatement Society. I had better be careful of what I say about the Noise Abatement Society; otherwise, it may lobby me as it did the Minister of Aviation at 6 o'clock in the morning.
To all concerned who have helped in bringing the Bill this far in its passage

through Parliament I express great gratitude. At the same time, I express to the House the hope that it will see fit to give it a Third Reading.

2.35 p.m.

Mr. C. Pannell: I heard the understanding which was come to—I do not call it an undertaking—but I hope the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) will bear in mind that some of our objections are real and rather deep-rooted. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) is not in his place. He was not in his place earlier today when I deployed certain arguments about this matter. The last thing I should like as an outcome of our debate today is some idea that this Bill is concerned with Messrs. T. Wall and Son. It would be very unfortunate if it were thought that the activity of one of the giants in the trade was the sole reason for the Bill.
If it were just a matter of representatives of a national ice-cream monopoly coming round, perhaps, "donging" once in the morning, that would not be a nuisance. I said earlier that we had five such people past my residence last Sunday. Since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we might very well have fifteen one Sunday or other, which would be an infernal nuisance. It is not just the volume which causes the trouble but the repetition. One of the Chinese forms of torture is based on constant repetition, on drip, drip, drip. The same sort of thing is true of noise.
Some people, I believe, who are not used to engineering factories, cannot stand the sound of high-pitched saws, the filing of hard metals, and so on. It is not just the volume of the noise which is so soul-destroying. Often, it is the intensity which matters. During the war, I think that there was at one time a proposal to make a bomb which, travelling at high velocity, made a high-pitched piercing sound sufficient to drive people mad.
We recognise that the hon. Member for Hexham is making a gallant attempt to abate noise. His Bill is full of holes, and he must not think it unreasonable of us if we consider that some of the holes are rather more anti-social than some of the noises he proposes to abate. We may appear to be rather obstinate on this last occasion. We expect him


to go a substantial way towards meeting us on the point and we feel sure that, at least, he will do his best.

2.38 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: "Drip, drip, drip" is, no doubt, a statutory and almost, I might say, a Parliamentary nuisance, and is not only on council housing estates that we encounter nuisances of that kind.
I like the Bill very much. I like it as it is, and I would not wish to see it in any substantial way amended. I will explain why. First, the Bill is extending the law into a new field. It is taking over something which for many centuries has been part of the ordinary common law of nuisance. There is always the right to complain at any time about a public or a private nuisance. That is now re-emphasised in Clause 1 of the Bill. There we have the whole matter made fairly clear.
Coming to the next stage, we reach the matter which has been the subject of controversy here, Clause 2. I hope that Clause 2 will not be amended in another place and will not have further sanctions written into it in any way at all. I believe that it is as it stands quite sufficient, at least as a start, certainly for a Private Member's Bill. Also, we should remember that local authorities have further powers through their bye-laws. I refer particularly to the "noisy hawkers"byelaw.
There has been a lot of talk about Messrs. T. Wall and Son and about ice cream. In fairness to them, I should say that I very much welcome the memorandum which I received from them. I should like to point out to hon. Members who have considerable experience of assisting in the Committee stages of legislation—and there are a number in the House at the moment—that we have been very much indebted to various associations and trade associations which send us very good memoranda. This year the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and I have spent over thirty sessions together on the Betting and Gaming Bill.

Mr. Ede: Twenty-five.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It seemed to be thirty to me.

Mr. Speaker: This would appear to be out of order. The hon. Member for

the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) is speaking on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I referred to that matter for this reason, Mr. Speaker. There has been a great deal of discussion to the effect that this Bill relates only to Messrs. T. Wall & Sons and vested interests. The point that I was making was that in fact we require and badly need adequate information from those in the trade whose interests are affected. I do not believe that Messrs. Wall has in any way infringed perfectly legitimate and proper interests in putting its case before the House. I do not regard Messrs. Wall as having put forward a vested interest or a lobby any more than if the Noise Abatement Society had sent out a memorandum of its views of pedestrians in relation to transport matters.
I do not think that it is anything like sufficiently realised that Clause 2 (3) concerns far wider matters than ice cream. In my constituency, there are council and other estates which are far distant from the main shopping centres. A practice which is growing in my constituency and which my constituents like is for greengrocers and fruiterers regularly to travel around those estates. If the public do not want to have to go to the nearest town, I am all in favour of the development of a new system of trade in perishable commodities, namely, the travelling vendor who goes to the estates, taking with him the ice cream, fruit, and vegetables and also possibly the groceries. I can well imagine that as time goes on this practice will increase.
It will be appreciated that today new housing estates are being created further and further afield. If we limit too severely the method by which these traders attract customers they will not be able to attract them in this potential new type of trade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) pointed out a loophole which I am bound to say I immediately noticed in the Bill. If I were a fruiterer going to council estates and if I were stopped from using a loudspeaker, I would use a certain type of klaxon which I would hoot four times. The first two times I would hoot it to wake people up, the third time to attract a bit of attention, and the fourth time it


would be agonising. I do not think that to hoot four times on an ordinary klaxon would be sufficient to sustain a prosecution under Clause 1.

Mr. Speir: What about the Road Traffic Acts?

Mr. Rees-Davies: Although someone might try to bring a prosecution under those Acts I do not think he would succeed. In any case, I do not think he would bother to do it.
It seems to me that those who trade in perishable commodities, which is a very different thing from those who trade in non-perishable foods, ought not to be discouraged from being able to go to new housing estates. I do not think that that will constitute the gravest nuisance. We are apt to become a little unrealistic in this matter. We must realise that the volume of noise which we sustain today with regard to the matters which we have been discussing is nothing compared with the matters with which we have had to deal—for example, the noise of jets at Manston and violent noises from motor cycles, aircraft and things like that. We must try to keep a balance in our legislation between relatively lesser noises which the Bill rightly seeks to limit and greater noises, but we must not try to take the situation too far.
On the whole, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) is to be commended on introducing the Bill, primarily for the reason which he gave, namely, that it is a very good thing that a Noise Abatement Bill should pass through the House. It will show that noise abatement is something which warrants attention in this progressive age of leisure into which we are moving. At the same time, great care must be taken by the Government that they do not allow themselves to be unduly lobbied by those interested in the prevention of noise compared with those who are also concerned with the new methods of trade which are arising.

Mr. C. Pannell: They are not new.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I think that they are increasing. The mobile van will have a very great part to play in future trade, a greater part than it has played in the past. I do not want that type of trade —which may well be attractive to many who live in outlying districts—interfered

with if that is what the public wants. I think that the Bill as it stands is a reasonable compromise between the interests of trade, on the one hand, and the interests of the public, on the other.
There is provision in the Bill restricting the use of loudspeakers to between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. I think that everyone will agree that those hours are proper. To try to draw a distinction between an earlier hour of six o'clock in the evening and nine o'clock for one class of person is, to my mind, wrong. I think that there ought to be the same hours in the Bill right through, and if the chosen hour is nine o'clock rather than seven o'clock I think that that is reasonable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) said that Clause 2 deals with the protection only of those who sell perishable commodities. He has read the Bill wrongly. The Bill merely states that if one is selling a perishable commodity one may use a loudspeaker. I looked at this provision very carefully, and if it had concerned perishable commodities only, I should have tabled an Amendment to exclude the word "perishable", which, to my mind, would be the proper way of dealing with the matter. It merely indicates the guiding principle to protect those primarily selling perishable goods. That is right, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham. There is a great difference between perishable goods sold by travelling vendors and those which are not perishable.
I hope that the Bill will go through in its present form and that when the Government are considering what further legislation may be necessary they will retain the balance that they have already shown between the trade, business and professional interests and, at the same time, try to secure adequate protection against undue interference by noise. It is in the light of those principles that I shall be very happy to see the Bill receive a Third Reading.

2.49 p.m.

Sir L. Plummer: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) is the only hon. Member who is satisfied with the Bill as it stands. All other hon. Members who have been here since eleven o'clock will realise that the sponsor of the Bill has accepted suggestions from both sides for the improvement of the Bill. It is no fault of the


hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet that he was not here to listen to the debate and be seized of the points raised.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) expressed exactly the same view as I have on these matters, and, as to not having followed the Bill, may I say that I have read the Bill, and the Second Reading debate, and that I also read the Committee stage report before I came here today to deal with these Amendments? I got here as soon as I could lust after the first Amendment was moved.

Sir L. Plummer: If the hon. Gentleman says that he has power to speak for another hon. Member, of course, we all accept that. The fact is that he was not here at the time, that he missed a great deal of the debate and was not present when certain Amendments were accepted. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is in a minority—he is not the only one—a minority of two who believe that this Bill should not be altered in any form.
I would say to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) that if he were to accept the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, he would be violating the understanding which has been reached between his side of the House and this side about Clause 2. We accepted quite genuinely his assurance that he would look at this matter again to see if there could not be some compromise, and compromise means an alteration in the Bill. We accepted his assurance in those terms, and we know he will keep his word.
Another thing which the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet illustrated was a very interesting development which has arisen out of the Bill. We have had two lobbies before the House today. The hon. Gentleman referred to one—the ice-cream manufacturer—but he made no mention of the other in his speech. That is the lobby coming to us from our constituents who complain about this noise, and not one single word did the hon. Member say about it.
It did not occur to the hon. Member that there was any other case but that of the vested interests which he presented, and the case of the vested interests was presented in such a way as to suggest that it was the major one. This is what has come out of the Bill—

that in the House of Commons we have that kind of pressure from these vested interests, people who always have the idea that their case is more important than the point of view of our constituents. I think that the point of view of my constituents who complain of the infernal noise up and down their street up to 10 o'clock at night is just as important to me as a carefully worded dock brief from somebody who is in the business to make profit out of it. It is most important that we should listen to what our constituents have to say. We are constantly subjected to pressure, carefully written, beautifully printed and elaborately produced, in an attempt to give one side of the case against that of our constituents.
I think that the hon. Member for Hex-ham has done a service to the House in illustrating the effect on old people and particularly on children of a lot of noise and I hope that, before the present Parliament is much older, the Government will come forward with some constructive legislation to deal with what is a burning problem—the wear and strain on people as a result of unnecessary noise. Life is difficult, complicated and fearful enough as it is, and it is shocking that people have the liberty to make noise whenever they think they can get away with it. I believe that part of the neurosis, tension and angst from which we suffer in this world is due to the fact that we are constantly assailed by extraneous, unnecessary noise, and because I believe that this Bill is a step in remedying that evil, I hope that the Government will regard it as such. I wish the sponsor of the Bill well when it goes to another place.

2.54 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I should like to pay a very small tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) for having brought his Bill to its Third Reading, and to hope that the House will give it a Third Reading in a moment or two. No private Member has done more than my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham in introducing what I might describe as civilising legislation. I remember his Litter Bill not very long ago. I hope that any difficulties that he has had today will not deter my hon. Friend from introducing other worthwhile Measures in the future. If he likes to turn his attention to the subject of


the danger and nuisance caused by the smoke and fumes of road vehicles, I shall be very happy to support him.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) for the courtesy he has shown throughout the discussions on this Bill, for the patience which he has shown with everybody's different points of view, and to express the hope that as he looks back upon the result of his labours, he will feel that they have been worth while. I am bound to say that I doubt very much whether that will be the case. I doubt very much whether, when this Bill reaches the Statute Book, it will add very substantially to the existing law. My advice is certainly to stick to the "noisy hawkers byelaw" as being a much more effective way of dealing with the problem than this Bill will show itself to be.
My misgivings about the Bill arise from what the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said because he picked out the two points which had worried me most. The first is that it will be taken as a whitewashing operation for the musical chimes. I do not pretend to be violently emotionally involved in this. I am in the happy position that it does not matter to me what the noises are. They all sound like "God Save the Queen" to me, I am unable to distinguish between one type of tune and another. But it would be a mistake to under-estimate the amount of feeling there is about the injury and annoyance caused by these noises.
I am told that quite apart from the very delicately balanced dulcimer sounds of Mr. Peter Yorke, to which our attention has been directed, one can hear the "Harry Lime theme" from "The Third Man", "The Happy Wanderer" and even the "Coppelia" Ballet music. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet suggested that we shall have an increase in the variety of our musical education, and I can only express even more fervently my satisfaction that, being so unmusical, it will probably not worry me nearly as much as it will my constituents and some parents.
One other difficulty which arises and which has been mentioned about ice-cream vendors' chimes is the fact that the

vendors assemble outside the schools, wait for the children to come out, and start off their music to persuade the children to buy large quantities of ice cream, to a wholly unwise degree and without the supervision or control of their parents, and without any possibility of the teachers interfering. That is not to be a killjoy. I do not for a moment deny that I like ice cream, and I only wish that I could be eating it at a reasonable hour at midday today instead of having to be in this Chamber, but it would 'be foolish not to recognise that this is a serious social problem.
The hon. Member for Isle of Thanet went on to suggest that we must accept this and that we shall have a great development of mobile trade in foodstuffs. He said that we shall have an extension of competition and a growing use of these noisy methods of advertising; and that we should not interfere with this in an attempt to safeguard people. It is a difficult problem in that, on the one hand, certain people want reasonable access to perishable commodities while, on the other hand, we have the views of those who want peace and quiet. We have to hold a balance between the two, and this Bill tries to hold it, although I very much doubt whether it does it successfully.
To accept the view that we should in no way interfere with the noise caused by advertisements of this kind because basically it is a service which people want is to accept a very dangerous point of view. It will be taken that, by not proceeding with the Amendment today, the House has given these people a green light and that they need not worry but can go straight ahead with these noisy methods. That is the danger which faces us. The hon. Member may be able to meet that difficulty by what he can put into the Bill in another place. If he does, many of us will be very grateful to him.

3.0 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: If the Bill is passed it will be the first general Statute dealing exclusively with noise. It will be the first step that Parliament has taken to cope with one of the less desirable features of modern life. That it is only a first step has been readily admitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir), who sponsored the Bill.


The larger purpose and the larger problems arising from that purpose are for the Wilson Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) rightly reminded the House that that Committee has invited representations from all individuals, including Members of Parliament, and I hope that some of the hon. Members who have shown such strong feelings today will take advantage of that invitation
The Wilson Committee will hear all sides of the story, and it is our job as Members of Parliament to see all sides of the picture. I think that the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), in emphasising our obligations to our constituents, did less than justice to the interests which may be effected by the Bill and their right to present their case to us. Both sides have always had their right to be heard and to make representations to all of us.
Meanwhile, I should like to join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham on his new initiative. I very much hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Ede: Before he sits down, will the hon. Member allow me to ask this question: it is quite clear that there are general hopes that the Bill will be amended, one way or another, in another place on two or three points. If that happens and the Bill is sent back here, will the Parliamentary Secretary use his influence with his colleagues in the Government to ensure that we have time to discuss the Lords Amendments? We are getting well towards the end of the days on which Private Members' Bills may be considered.

Sir K. Joseph: I should very much like to be able to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but that is beyond my power. This is an initiative on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, and I cannot commit my colleagues to any course of action arising out of it.

Mr. Ede: I did not ask the hon. Member to commit his colleagues to any course of action. I asked him to use his influence with them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — OIL BURNERS (STANDARDS) BILL

As amended, considered.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(PROHIBITION OF SALE, ETC., OF OIL HEATERS OR COMPONENT PARTS NOT COMPLYING WITH REGULATIONS.)

3.4 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move, in line 34, after "of", to insert:
a sale under a credit-sale agreement or".
It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if this and the other two Amendments on the Order Paper were discussed together. They are the following Amendments: In page 5, line 16, at the end, to insert:
Act of 1932" means the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1932, as amended by the Hire-Purchase Act, 1954;
credit-sale agreement" means an agreement for the sale of goods under which the whole or part of the purchase price is payable by instalments, except that, as respects Scotland, it does not include an agreement to sell under a contract to which the Act of 1932 applies.
In page 5, line 20, to leave out from "the" to the end of line 21 and to insert "Act of 1932".

Mr. Speaker: Certainly.

Mr. Nabarro: Clause 2 makes it an offence, among other things, to let under a hire-purchase agreement an oil heater which does not comply with the prescribed standards in the Bill. Subsection (3, d) provides an exemption for a person who proves that he had at no time possession of the oil heater concerned and became the owner of it only at the moment that he entered into the hire-purchase agreement. This exemption which has a respectable precedent in the form of a similar exemption granted in the Heating Appliances (Fireguards) Act, 1952, is intended to cover hire-purchase finance companies who do not handle goods—I use the word "handle" in a physical sense—and therefore have no opportunity to see whether these goods comply with the prescribed standard. These hire-purchase finance companies merely provide the money to finance the hire-purchase agreements between the actual seller of the goods and his customer.


It has been represented to me that the exemption should be extended to cover credit-sale agreements where the circumstances are identical, except that the ownership of the goods passes to the customer on completion of the agreement, the customer, of course, paying off the debt by instalments over the period, now limited by recent Statutory Instruments, instead of remaining with the seller until all, or according to the terms of the agreement itself, a proportion, of the instalments have been paid.
It seems clear to me that the merits are the same in either case and that the exemption should be extended accordingly. In the case of a credit-sale agreement it seems that, as a matter of law, ownership of the goods rests with the finance company—that is, the hire-purchase finance company, momentarily on its passage from the actual seller to the customer, and this would bring the finance company within the mischief of Clause 2 were it not for the proposed exemption enshrined in the Amendment.
The Amendment makes the necessary extension to Clause 2 (3, d). The other two Amendments define "credit sale agreement" and are therefore of a consequential drafting character to create the necessary changes in Clause 8.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 8.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendments made: In page 5, line 16, at end insert:

"Act of 1932" means the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act, 1932, as amended by the Hire-Purchase Act, 1954;

"credit-sale agreement" means an agreement for the sale of goods under which the whole or part of the purchase price is payable by instalments, except that, as respects Scotland, it does not include an agreement to sell under a contract to which the Act of 1932 applies.

In line 20, leave out from "the" to end of line 21 and insert "Act of 1932".—[Mr. Nabarro.]

3.6 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has so far had a relatively rapid passage in this House, having been read the First time on 15th March, given a Second Reading on 1st April, considered in Committee on 13th May when

substantial Amendments were made, and the few Amendments today on Report, culminating with the Third Reading. It is fair to say that it is an all-party Measure evidently warmly supported by Her Majesty's Government.
The Bill is perhaps a reflection upon our arrangements in this country in that so often we await catastrophe to overtake us, in one sphere or another, before legislative action is taken by this House and in another place. For example, it will be recalled that it was not until 4,000 Londoners had lost their lives during and after the dreadful "smog" in the winter of 1952 that the Beaver Committee was set up and was followed by the clean air legislation of 1955–56.
It is an exact analogy to say in the context of this Bill that had it not been for the penetrating inquiries of the coroner following the disaster at Ware in Hertfordshire on 13th November, 1959, and the widespread technical inquiries concerning domestic portable oil heaters which followed, by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and similar bodies, we would not have had presented to the House by the Home Secretary, on 7th March last, such a graphic account of the dangers and hazards inherent in these heaters. And, of course, it was that statement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 7th March last which caused me on the following day to set down a Motion on the Order Paper seeking leave to bring in this Bill.
The Bill gives the Home Secretary full statutory powers to make regulations requiring minimum standards of safety and efficiency for domestic portable oil burners. Another way of defining appliances of that kind is to say that they are un-Rued—a hyphenated expression connoting that they are portable in character and not attached to a flue being part of the fabric of a building. The Bill covers portable domestic heaters only and excludes fixed appliances such as oil boilers, oil radiators, and equipment of that kind.
I hope that this Measures will be a precursor to comprehensive legislation for safety in the home. The number of accidents arising in the home today from hazards of one kind and another in the use of oil, electrical and gas appliances is mounting steadily. In the aggregate


they have now reached huge proportions, the subject is closely affiliated to the work of the Committee on Consumer Protection, now called the Molony Committee, which issued its Interim Report (Cmnd. 1011) last April, shortly after the Second Reading of the Bill. The Report contained a number of paragraphs drawing particular attention to the dangers of the oil-burning portable domestic appliances referred to in the Bill.
If the House consents to the Third Reading of the Bill today we shall be implementing precisely the recommendations contained in the Interim Report of the Molony Committee. When the final report of that Committee is available I hope that the Government will proceed with more comprehensive legislation, using the Bill as a model of what is required in a wider field.
I need hardly add that the Bill will cover new appliances of a kind of which there are now more than 12 million in use. It can apply only to new appliances, manufactured and marketed after the date when the Regulations referred to in Clause 1, become operative. It cannot touch in any way the 12 million appliances already in the hands of the consumers. It is a powerful Measure. Not only does it require the making of Regulations by the Home Secretary to prescribe standards of efficiency and safety but it couples with that, in Clause 2, a total prohibition upon the marketing of sub-standard appliances, which have so largely been the cause of the accidents to which I have referred.
Clause 3 is a penetrating Clause, dealing with the inspection and testing of heaters by the enforcing authorities, which are the local authorities. Full opportunities exist for such local authorities to obtain specimens of suspicious heaters—using the term "suspicious" metaphorically—and to send them to a number of appointed laboratories, municipal or private, such as those of the British Standards Institution or the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, for testing and certification.
The regulations made under Clause 1 must necessarily be of a strong and meticulous character. They will require to include detailed instructions for the use of these heaters when the heaters are marketed. They will include particular requirements, in the form of markings

on the heater, drawing attention to the manufacturer's name or trade mark, the manufacturer's type number, the British Standard with which the appliance is associated, a warning against the use of the wrong fuel, such as petrol instead of kerosene—which can be extremely hazardous—against carrying the appliance when it is lit—which has led to the death of many small children—upon the need for adequate ventilation, for protection against draughts, and a special warning against placing the appliance in a position in a room where it can easily be knocked over, and other suitable warnings.
All those matters come within the purview of marking. The specification of the heater itself would form the subject of separate paragraphs in the Regulations, and I hope that they will be comprehensive in character, covering all the technical considerations of construction, notably fixing devices to prevent the heaters being knocked over, requirements as to the use of metals and associated substances for the prevention of corrosion—which has been the cause of so many accidents—the dangers of spillage of fuel, the construction of the wick, the burner and the winder, manufacturing tolerances, the interchangeability and the assembly of removable components, guards, the question of lighting the heater, and a number of other technical matters. All those points should form the subject matter of the Statutory Instrument to be laid before the House before 31st December, next, in accordance with the requirements of the Bill.
There are only two other matters to which I wish to allude. The first concerns the enforcement authority. It will be seen that a definition of a local authority in Clause 8 of the Bill follows the precedents of many earlier Bills. It has been represented to me in the last few days by the County Councils Association that it should be predominantly associated with this work of enforcement. As I did not have the Association's representations until yesterday, that is, after the Bill had passed through its Committee stage, it has hardly been possible for me to deal fully with the points that the Association has made.
Of course, if the power of the county councils in the matter of enforcement were considered by my right hon. Friend


the Home Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government it might well be to the detriment of other local authorities. I cannot imagine that it would be easy to obtain a high common factor of consent among the conflicting interests of different classes of local authorities as to which should be predominant in this field.
I have therefore felt bound to tell the County Councils Association that, at this late stage, I am afraid that we must have an open mind on the matter as to which kind of local authority can most suitably undertake duties of this kind. Other local authority associations, that is, local authority associations other than the County Councils Association, might take a different view.
I think that all these representative bodies ought to be given adequate opportunity to express their views before any decision is taken to alter the provisions of the Bill. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and, of course, to my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, to see whether, if we secure a Third Reading for the Bill, between this date and the time that it is considered in another place the voices of the local representative bodies might be collected in order to find out whether there is any measure of agreement. Otherwise, I am afraid, the wording in the Bill at present would have to remain.
Finally, the reason for the Bill is twofold. It is an endeavour to cut down the hideous toll of fatal accidents in the home arising from fires caused through oil-burning appliances, many of a substandard character. These deaths have been large in number. I have been careful to collect statistics, very recent statistics not yet published in any official document, and I quote them on the authority of the Fire Officers' Committee of the Fire Protection Association.
Between January and March, 1960—three months only—eleven people lost their lives through oil burner fires in the home. In the last quarter of last year, between October and December, 1959, again eleven people lost their lives. Between January and March, 1959, sixteen people lost their lives. In the period

October to December, 1958, four people lost their lives. Between January and March, 1958, twelve people lost their lives, and so on.
There is a very large death roll resulting from these dangerous appliances. There is an even larger loss in terms of property and money, though that is a materialistic and not a human consideration, resulting from the huge number of fires. The House might note that in 1956 there were 1,202 fires caused by oil burning appliances, that is, fires in the home. In 1958, two years later, the figure had risen to 4,464 in a year. It had been multiplied more than four times.
The Molony Committee brings out graphically, by another means certainly, the significance of the figures that I have given. Their alternative method is to compare the question of paraffin heater fires per 1,000 tons of paraffin delivered to the home market. In paragraph 23 on page 8 of its Report, the Committee said:
…the incidence of paraffin heater fires per thousand tons of paraffin delivered to the home market rose from 2·2 in 1947 to 3·2 in 1949, and again from 3·3 in 1952 to 4·1 in 1956,
thereby roughly doubling in a period of nine years.
In this House we cannot legislate for the utterly stupid. We cannot seek to make laws to protect the totally improvident. All we can do, surely, and this is the purpose of the Bill, is to assure that in future these oil-burning portable appliances for the home are clearly marked with the requirements for assuring good standards of safety in their use; that instructions accompany the heaters showing exactly how they should be used and that the heaters conform to the requirements of a very high technical standard. Then, I hope that by propaganda—notably the reports of the dreadful accidents which have appeared in so many newspapers and on the radio and television programmes associated with the topic—the public will become more alive to the dangers of leaving these heaters unfixed in rooms where small children may be playing; where they may stand in dangerous positions, and where a door may suddenly be opened, causing a draught which in turn may cause the heater to flare which may possibly result


in a fire leading to loss of life or a serious accident.
I hope that I will have the unanimous support of the House in moving the Third Reading of the Bill.

3.22 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: I think I shall carry the House with me in saying that we owe a debt to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) over his activity in the promotion of this Bill and his perseverence. I sometimes think that perhaps his ebullient demeanour in this House causes some eyebrows to be raised speculatively, but no one would deny that the hon. Gentleman has great courage and imagination. This Bill is one which will be well thought of in due course and, as I say, we owe a debt to the hon. Gentleman.
I should like to underline one or two things which he has already said, first about the advice or part to be played by various forms of local authorities. I am not at all sure that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the county councils. I represent a constituency which is largely rural and in respect of that and similar constituencies a major rôle is played by county councils in connection with the fire department. Since the fire department is intimately concerned with this problem, I think it may be that the rôle of county councils ought to be considered afresh in another place.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that between 1947 and 1956 there had been a substantial increase in the number of oil burners used in this country. I make no apology for reminding the House about what was said in the Interim Report of the Molony Committee about these figures. As the House will be aware, the Committee drew attention to the undue delay which it seemed to think had occurred in coming to conclusions about the figures, and providing an analysis and interpretation of the significance of this tremendous increase in the number of oil burners and fires. I cannot help feeling that since the end of the war there has been a general increase in the number of technical associations advisory councils and all sorts of organisations which seem to find jobs for people, yet do not appear to exercise sufficient imagination. I do not blame

the particular organisations here, although I think all of us, especially those who have an immediate direct responsibility for analysing fire risks, should have been more alive to this problem.
In empowering the Secretary of State to provide regulations, I hope the Minister will consider that section of the Report on the effect of draughts on the burning of portable oil heaters, published by the D.S.I.R. and the Joint Fire Research Organisation, which deals with possible remedial measures in so far as it affects oil burners now in use in homes. I think most of us will agree that certain pieces of legislation—I am thinking at the moment particularly about clean air legislation and river pollution legislation—which have gone on to the Statute Book since the end of the war have taken a very long time to become understood by the public or to be enforced by responsible authorities.
With this Bill to which we are now giving the Third Reading, I hope that the Secretary of State will see what he can do in designing and drafting regulations to ensure that account is taken of the possible remedial measures and that they will be enforced on manufacturers and brought to the attention of the public. Especially in rural areas, less so in these days when television and other agencies are available to everybody, but nevertheless in rural areas, it is not so easy to bring to the attention of people changes in the law, dangers, remedial measures and so forth.
I do not think that we are dealing with the subject as a whole unless we take account of the fact, for instance, that the number of drip-feed type heaters already in use is 3 million. It is a fair assumption that there is one in each of 3 million homes and there is the risk that householders or parents might not appreciate what is attempted under this Bill. That is one of the points the Secretary of State should take into account when drafting regulations.
There are secondary effects about oil heaters which, strictly speaking, so far as I read the Bill, do not get covered by the empowering authority given under the Bill. I refer to the effect of the burning up of oxygen in homes where these burners are used. I understand that the


French Academy of Medicine is at present investigating the particular danger of reduction of the normal air content. It is a substantial danger which, in my judgment, people have not as yet begun to realise fully.
I conclude by saying that we can legislate happily here, we can see that copies of the Act are published and that all local authorities are informed, but the real effectiveness of this sort of Measure will be when every home which has to use an oil burner knows what its basic provisions are. I suggest that the Government might well consider some form of publicity, such as has been used over road accidents, health and so forth, in bringing to the attention of the public what the dangers are and how they can be avoided, bearing in mind that in this matter a substantial number of sufferers are children who do not come within the ambit of the hon. Member's phrase of "the improvident or stupid", but who are the somewhat helpless.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Once more the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is to be congratulated on having succeeded in getting through the House, if the Bill succeeds, another Measure designed to make the home a safer place than it was before. It is and has been the most dangerous place in the country, judging by the number of accidents, and it will continue to be somewhat dangerous if these 3 million drip-feed, radiant heaters continue to be used unmodified.
I have with me the Report of the Fire Officers' Committee of the Fire Protection Association which deals with a number of these accidents which have taken place. I will not weary the House by going through many of them, particularly in view of the very short time left, but I will mention a few. In Bristol, in February, a small girl lost her life through a faulty heater. In London, in November last year, a heater was mishandled and a woman and young boy, although rescued, nearly lost their lives. Faulty, mishandled and misused heaters have resulted in loss of life, and not long ago a faulty heater caused three people in London to lose their lives. This long history of accidents can continue through

the faultiness or mishandling of this dangerous type of heater.
I have looked very carefully at the power which the Secretary of State has. He has power to make regulations dealing with heaters already in use. I shall look to see whether he uses that power to enable enforcement of the changing of heaters and the conversion of heaters to make them safe when they are now being used. The Bill clearly says:
The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—
for requiring oil heaters of such class or description as may be specified in the regulations, or any component part of an oil heater, being a pant of such class or description as may be so specified, to comply☠
with the regulations. He will be able to include those already in use. Whether he will do so, I do not know and we shall have to wait until he publishes the regulations.
I hope that the regulations will be stringent and clearly and definitely set out. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster detailed some but not all of the requirements which should be set out in the regulations. We can be fairly certain that from now on the heaters which come on to the market will be of the safest possible kind. I think that we should say a word about the manufacturers who have made the heaters which have turned out to be dangerous. They did not know that they were dangerous. They do not have the testing facilities and they did not have the experience which would have come from their use. They designed something which worked efficiently and only time enabled them to see that they had made an unfortunate mistake. I understand that they have been the first to co-operate in the design of new and safe heaters and in the withdrawing of old heaters from the market. I hope that they will cooperate in future to see that heaters put on the market are of the safest possible kind, complying with all the regulations.
I hope that the Secretary of State will draft the regulations and lay them before the House at the earliest possible opportunity, because, until he does, there will be no regulations and the old heaters could continue to be supplied, which would be most unfortunate.
I commend the Bill to the House and ask it to give it a Third Reading.

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I, too, tender my congratulations to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on his initiative and energy and on the speed with which the Bill was introduced and brought to this its final stage. In Islington we have suffered seriously from tragedies resulting from the use in the home of a drip-feed, portable oil heater. I very much hope that, as soon as the Bill is passed, the Home Office will make the fullest possible use of its powers and will promulgate strong and efficient regulations with rapidity and despatch and, having done that, will take the necessary steps to see that the public is made aware of them, because it is essential, if the Bill is to succeed, that there should be the full force of enlightened public opinion behind it.
It is all very well for us to make laws. As the hon. Member for Kidderminster said, we recently passed the Clean Air Act, 1956. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) said. There often seems to be a considerable delay between the passing of legislation dealing with protective measures in the home and its being carried into operation and full application in the home.
These two Measures are closely related, because at present local authorities throughout the land are engaged in implementing the Clean Air Act and producing various areas designated as smokeless. Therefore, not only in London, but in other congested areas, large sections of the community are now giving thought to what steps they should take in future far heating their homes. An increasing number of houses in different parts of London and elsewhere are coming under the operation of the Clean Air Act, with the result that, in those areas designated as smokeless, householders are being compelled to apply their minds to what alternative forms of heating in their homes is best suitable for them.
They have the advantage of obtaining a grant from the local authority of seven-tenths of the cost of the conversion or adaptation from an open hearth burning coal to another form of heating for the home, whether it be electricity, gas, oil, or a solid smokeless fuel. Owing to that Measure, there is now a unique opportunity for local

authorities to educate the public in the most convenient, hygienic and cleanest method of heating the home.
In that connection, it would not be difficult also to bring home to those who are not already alive to them the dangers of portable oil heaters. To some extent those dangers will continue to exist whatever regulations are made under the Bill. My experience is that in Islington, and I imagine in other localities where, unfortunately, people have suffered from tragic accidents, there has been a very noticeable falling off in the sale of portable oil heaters and in the demand for them. That may or may not continue. This is an opportunity to educate the public about the risks inherent in this form of heating.
I very much hope that we shall not only pass the Bill today, but do all that we can to ensure that full effect is given to its provisions by the Home Office, local authorities and the public.

3.38 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is in what is for him the unusual situation of being in receipt of bouquets from both sides of the House this afternoon. As that experience may never happen to him again, I hope that I may be permitted to add my quota.
I rise to support my hon. Friend's Bill and to congratulate him on the efficiency and promptitude of his action. While we often think other things of him in the House, we must admit that he livens us up. On this occasion, he has livened us up to considerable effect and with great benefit. This is a special instance in the field of home safety in which it has been felt desirable to promote legislation on standards of heating goods.
I welcome it, not only personally, but also in my capacity as the Joint Chairman of the Parliamentary Home Safety Committee. I can speak with confidence on behalf of the other officers of the Committee in welcoming the Bill and expressing their regret at not being present this afternoon.
As my hon. Friend himself said, with this Bill we are winding up a story which started with the disastrous fire at Ware back in the autumn. We owe a great deal, as he said, to the coroner who


investigated this accident very thoroughly for the manner in which he investigated it and the way in which he drew a number of features, hitherto unfamiliar features, to our attention in regard to the operation of these heaters and the kind of disasters that might occur from them.
A number of us spent our time in investigating the deleterious effect of draught, tipping and other things. I can truly say that we were indeed very shocked when we found that comparatively small draughts and a comparatively minor degree of tipping of the heater could cause these very disastrous fires. It is unfortunate that it needs melodramatic incidents of this character before we get on the move in these matters. The energy of hon. Members on both sides of the House, not only that of my hon. Friend, and on the part of the Press, the Department, and the British Standards Institution has been rather in contrast with previous dilatory behaviour in the face of similar dangers which were reported from time to time.
This is a sort of situation which has aspects of unfairness, quite apart from the actual accidents concerned which might have been prevented. The people who have suffered most are the reputable oil heater manufacturers who have suddenly been faced with this scare, because of the effect that it has had on their production arrangements and their general business. They have had a very trying time indeed. They have acted extremely well. They have been most helpful throughout it all, and I think that they should have our sympathy.
They were anxious, and certain anxieties were expressed to a number of us, about the effect of regulations introduced as a result of a Bill of this type. I hope that they have been reassured by what was said in Committee. One of the things they asked, quite naturally, was, "Why pick on us?" The story of this Bill and its precedents is a lesson in other respects. There are similar dangers about which, as my hon. Friend said, we have to think, sooner or later, in terms of legislation. However, we also have to face the fact that this is a problem that cannot be controlled entirely by legislation. I think that I can best illustrate that by quoting a short sentence from the Molony Report which states that in investigating

other instances of accidents due to electrical appliances in the home
we learn that the great majority of such accidents have been due first and foremost to gross misuse, carelessness, or inexpert tinkering.
No legislation that we can pass in this House can protect people against foolishness of their own devising. It is, of course, principally a matter of education and propaganda. In regard to the 3 million heaters which are already in the homes of this country, it makes one despair a little when one hears from the manufacturers, who are perfectly willing to alter these heaters if they are returned to them, that up to date very few of these heaters have been returned to them for alteration. People have not taken the steps necessary for their own safety. So, as well as legislation, those of us who are in this House who are interested in this matter have a great job of propaganda in front of us.
We are particularly glad that my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary is with us today, and we hope that he and his Department will take note of the most important recommendation of this interim Report of the Molony Committee, which is that all home-safety arrangements should come under the control of a single Department. Those of us who are interested in this subject hope that it will be my right hon. Friend's Department. It has been one of our principal difficulties in asking Parliamentary Questions that we have not quite known to which Department to address them. Not only legislation, but popular education in the subject should be concentrated into a single drive.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: I should like to congratulate the indefatigable Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I am sure that he will not misunderstand but will rather agree with a slight qualification of my congratulations. I hope that this necessary and desirable Bill will not, so to speak, encourage the Government to delay the introduction of an enabling Bill to bring in regulations as they are needed to deal with all aspects of safety.
This Bill deals with one class of appliance but, as the Molony Report has said, there are other appliances. As the


hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) said, we must know which Ministry is to be responsible for the enabling Bill, and the regulations made under this Bill to make domestic appliances of one kind and another safer in use. I think that it is a job for the Board of Trade—and I do not want to pursue this further—rather than for the Home Office. When that wider Measure is being considered, this Bill will, so to speak, have to be brought into it.
The oil-heater manufacturers have certainly had a tough time of it. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) rather suggested that the manufacturers themselves did not do any testing and did not know what sort of appliances they were making. If I may say so, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not quite correct. To some extent, the manufacturers were misled by the fact that the earlier British Standard was not adequate, and only when these disastrous fires occurred was that earlier British Standard examined.
Some tribute should be paid to the manufacturers for the way in which they have faced up to the problem and, in particular, for their offer—which should have the widest possible publicity—to alter oil stoves already in shops and in the home to conform to the terms of the new British Standard. As we are rushing this Bill through—and that is desirable—I will say no more, except to tell the hon. Member for Kidderminster that we are all grateful to him for this Measure.

3.49 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I, too, should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on his energy and initiative, and on the swiftness with which this Measure has gone through. With so much attention now being focussed on accidents on the road, not many people realise what a very high accident rate there is in the home. Last year no fewer than 7,900 people were killed by various types of accident in the home—though not all, of course, as a result of the use of oil heaters. On the other hand, only 6,500 people were killed on our roads. I admit that is a high figure, but it is only 65 for every 79 killed in the home. I want to emphasise that difference.

The other matter to which I wish to direct attention is the necessity to increase the widespread propaganda in this matter. My hon. Friend pointed out that this Measure deals with oil burners which have not already been sold, and regulations will have to be drawn up and presented to deal with oil burners already in use. Nevertheless, those who are in the oil trade and who dispense paraffin to consumers should take note and when they are selling their small quantities of paraffin, particularly to elderly customers, they should draw the attention of those people to the possible inherent dangers of the apparatus and ask them, when convenient, to bring it in for examination. The retailers can do a great service and probably save several lives if they will only do this. I know it imposes a further responsibility upon them, but I am sure that many of them will undertake it willingly.
I congratulate my hon. Friend and assure him that he has my full support in this most useful Measure.

Mr. Nabarro: I am very much obliged.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I commend this Measure, which I believe has been immeasurably improved during the Committee and Report stages. My only regret is that the provisions of the Bill were not implemented two or three years ago. If they had been, many lives would have been spared.
What is apparent to me from a perusal of the D.S.I.R. Report and the Molony Report is that the latest figures available indicated that 90 per cent. of the fires were being caused by these portable heaters. It would have been advantageous if the prescription had come before, and not after the event. The drafting of this Bill has been cast extremely widely as it is easier to narrow a Bill than to extend it. It would also allow representations received from interested parties to be examined and suitable Amendments drafted into the Bill.
As it was originally envisaged, the Bill included factories, other commercial institutions as well as dwelling houses, and it also included hydrocarbon oils and not simply kerosene. In addition,


it included both fixtures and portable heaters. Quite rightly, this Bill had to be brought down to the dimensions of the present controversy. That has been done and as a result it has been improved.
I should indicate, on the question of heavy appliances—such installations as we find in the House of Commons and elsewhere—that they are already covered by British Standards specifications, and in some cases, such as in the Manchester Corporation Act, 1958 and in a number of other contemporary Measures, there are special provisions for ensuring that the public is safeguarded in the case of heavy installations.
As the time is rapidly drawing to a close and the Secretary of State for the Home Department will have to have an opportunity to speak, I should like to add to the plaudits which have been extended to my hon. Friend for having introduced the Bill and for having manoeuvred it, as we hope, to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Nabarro: I am obliged.

3.54 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) for the promotion which he has bestowed upon me.
I cannot follow my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) and others into the Molony Report in general; nor can I add to the fact, as I have already said, that my right hon. Friend has that matter under consideration in conjunction with his colleagues.
I wish to join in the congratulations extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on his initiative in sponsoring this most important Measure. Quite apart from the urgency of the matter, the Government must be grateful to him for the fact that he has enabled Government time to be saved in this respect.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) referred to the history of this unfortunate train of events. In 1956, some analysis of the figures was undertaken, but at that time, unfortunately, the information available did not provide a basis for determining
whether a particular type of heater or a particular defect of design was responsible.
It was not until the accident at Ware that we were able to understand fully the extent of the problem. Here I should like to associate myself with the tributes paid to the coroner, to the fire services and to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for their prompt investigations. As a result of the investigations, which, fortunately, coincided with the completion of the wind tunnel by the D.S.I.R., immediate action was taken. The action took four forms: the report to which reference has been made, the introduction of this Bill, the publication of the British Standards Institution standard, and the declaration by the Oil Appliance Manufacturers' Association that all appliances made in future would comply with the B.S.I. standard. Therefore, the Measure to which I hope the House will give a Third Reading sets the seal on the arrangements which have been made during the past few weeks.
I have three comments on the Bill. Clause 1, which has been remodelled from my hon. Friend's original Clause 5, has an important addition empowering my right hon. Friend to prescribe labels giving instructions about the working and use of oil heaters. This is a most important Molony Committee recommendation. No improvement in design by itself can possibly eliminate all risks, and we must try to ensure that owners are warned about such things as using the right kind of fuel, the right form of maintenance and the right way to use the heaters. That will be the purpose of the instructions on the labels.
As regards the regulations to which several hon. Members have referred, we have already entered into discussions with the appliance manufacturers and, as soon as the Bill becomes an Act, these negotiations will be advanced. The regulations, of course, will be based upon the B.S.I. standard, although, as I said in Committee, there must be certain points of difference. They will accord as nearly as possible—this is important for next season's models—and they will be prepared as soon as possible. They will cover the three points to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidder-minister referred in introducing the Bill —stability, draught protection and erosion


—and they will be as comprehensive as possible.
The question of enforcement has given my hon. Friend and myself some concern, but I believe that the wording of the Bill now is probably the best possible. We have received replies from all the local authority associations. In many ways, they think that some certification by the manufacturers would be preferable, but on that I have already said that I believe that the enforcement and testing by local authorities will be a reserve power, the main testing being done voluntarily by the manufacturers in conjunction with the laboratories.
I regret to say that one of my hon. Friends who thought that the Bill covered existing models is mistaken. That cannot be so under the regulations. The manufacturers said that they will modify all existing models, and, by August, fourteen of them, which is practically all the big manufacturers, will be ready to undertake this work. My right hon. Friend is in consultation with them about the best way to give publicity to the arrangements made, and, here again. I hope that the public, the really important people, will co-operate. I am happy to support my hon. Friend's Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL INJURIES (COMPENSATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

3.59 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): The subject of the Bill, the Second Reading of which the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has moved formally, is of great importance, but we cannot really discuss it in the half-minute or so available. It is a

matter to which my right hon. Friend is giving urgent consideration, but I should warn the hon. Gentleman that it will need a Bill of much greater proportions than the one he has, quite wisely, introduced. But I do—

It being Four o'Clock the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 24th June.

Orders of the Day — EX-SERVICE MEN (HOUSING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mellish: Every hon. Member who is fortunate enough to have his or her name drawn in the ballot for the Adjournment considers that the subject he wants to raise is the most important ever discussed in the House. I do not hake that claim, but I make the point that as this subject concerns ex-Regular Service men—and for the purpose of this debate I refer to all the Services—and the problem of housing after they have left the Services it is of great importance. I am much obliged to the Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary for being in attendance. I feel confident that he shares my view about the importance of this matter.
In a very short time we will rely entirely on Regular Armed Forces, know that the Government have tried by way of improvement of wages and conditions to attract a considerable number of men into the Armed Forces. One thing that I think they have forgotten to do, or have not given enough attention to, is the problem which men face when they leave the Armed Forces. It has often been said in this House that it is not the numbers of personnel in the Army which are important but the number of man-years which those numbers produce. For example, it is obvious that if a man can be induced to sign on for twenty-one years he is three times the value of a man who signs on for seven years.
One of the important aspects in recruiting a Regular Army is that we should try to attract men to stay as


long as possible and give them continuity of Service. I am one of those who believe that when a man signs on for 21 years or over this country owes him a very great debt. I do not compare, and never have done, his job or life with that of the civilian. Special concessions have to be given to him and therefore special and privileged action is called for, in this case, on the part of the Army to ensure that he is given security when he leaves the Army.
I have raised this matter with the War Office on previous occasions when I had cases which came to my notice in which men who were leaving the Army with their wives and children had nowhere to go. Some short while ago, in another place, a Question was asked about the number of evictions which had taken place in the Army, and I have here the reply given by the noble Lord the Earl of Onslow.
The numbers of soldiers' families evicted from married quarters in the Army at the end of their term of service are as follows: for 1955, 90 families; in 1956, 77 families; in 1957, 91 families; in 1958, 78 families, and in 1959, 82 families. These were the families of serving soldiers who were evicted because their term of service to their country had come to an end. They had to go out of the married quarters in which they were living, though they had nowhere else to go, because the Army had to get rid of them.
I will not press too far this question of eviction, because the Army authorities are tolerant and kindly, and I recognise that they have to have these quarters. I am not making too much of the argument of eviction, because I recognise that at the end of the day it has to be done. What I strongly object to is that it should occur at all. The Army, like the other Services, has first-class welfare facilities available, and I believe that a great deal more imagination is required in dealing with this problem.
Recently, I had two cases brought to my notice, one of a soldier who had twenty-one years' service and the other who had over twenty-five years' service. One had already left the Army, and left his married quarters, and had gone out to try to find accommodation. He is living at the

moment in furnished room at five ginueas a week. He was advised by the welfare authorities to see whether he could not get his name on the local authority housing list. This is often said to soldiers: "Get your name put down on a local authority housing list, and perhaps they can help you". The fact of the situation is—I am not trying to enter into any party political argument—that with many local authorities today there is no such thing as a waiting list. The subsidy paid by the Government for housing is for slum clearance, and, therefore, local authorities all over the country find that it is not possible to rehouse people from a general waiting list. They have their own local problems, and cannot take over the responsibility of accommodating Regular soldiers who are in need of houses. That gives rise to a great deal of hardship.
I know that the Army authorities have tried to help to some extent. I have been making inquiries and I find that they have issued a Services Resettlement Bulletin, which I am sure the Under-Secretary has seen. I have here Bulletin No. 2, of 1960, in which housing is featured. This is supplied to Regular Service men and it sets out to show them how they can get houses. I have read this Bulletin, and while I do not want to be too critical, I want to refer the Under-Secretary to page 9. There the soldier is told that he must buy himself a house, and it gives details of a house costing £2,000 and what would be required initially from the soldier before a house of that kind could be considered. He would have to pay, the Bulletin says, a deposit of £200, legal fees of £51, Stamp Duty of £4 10s., and surveyor's fee of £5, a total of £260 10s. That is what they say to a soldier, as if he were a civilian, pointing out that this is the method and manner in which to buy a house. It is then stated that, with a bit of luck, he might get a 95 per cent. mortgage and have to find the other 5 per cent., which would cost him £260, and he could then buy a house. Alternatively these men are told that they can apply to be placed on the local authority housing list. I have explained that that is quite unreal. The wretched Regular soldier finds when he enters civil life that such lists do not exist.
I find it ironical, although typical of the approach of authority in these


matters, that towards the end of a book they give suggested colour schemes to the Regular soldier to tell him how to paint the house he has not got. You will be interested to know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is suggested that the soldier's house might have warm white walls, pale blue ceilings, dark blue carpets, and a pale blue and white bedspread, with accessories to match the carpets. This is typical of the Army —and I say that having had six years in the Army. The unfortunate man who is looking for a home, and who certainly has not succeeded in finding one, can read at the back of the book how he could furnish it to his advantage. That is the last straw.
I want to be practical today. When a man gives twenty-one years of his life to the Army, the nation owes him a debt. I raised this issue previously when I had the great distinction of speaking from the Front Bench on Army matters. I raised the question of how the Army can approach this problem with a view to finding a 100 per cent. mortgage, with a very low fixed interest charge, as a special privilege for those who are in the Armed Forces. I have had correspondence with the War Office about it, and no doubt they looked into my suggestion, but eventually they abandoned the idea of proceeding with it.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary today not to reject my suggestion out of hand. I want him to be imaginative and to tell the War Office to prepare such a scheme and to show how it could be implemented. This is what I want to happen: when a man has signed on for twenty-one years, then three or four years before the end of his career he should be offered a scheme whereby he can obtain a 100 per cent. mortgage through Army facilities. I do not know how the Army would arrange it. It might be arranged through a building society and it might need a new Vote in the Estimates.
I want the Army to say to the Regular soldier, about three years before the end of his engagement, "We can provide you with a 100 per cent. mortgage on the lowest possible interest terms. We want you to select a house of your choice in the district in which you want to live." This could be done about three years before the end of his engagement.
because in the main the Army then knows that the man will not be sent overseas again. Many of these men would settle down and start making their repayments before they left the Army.
There is collateral for the Army. The Army need not worry about repayment of the loan. Soldiers have good pensions today, and they receive a lump sum gratuity. All these things help him. The Army need not worry about the finances. We are recruiting men today at the age of eighteen, which means that after their twenty-one year's service they are only forty. The Army is therefore pretty certain of getting its money back. I want the Army to show more imagination here, and not simply to give me the reply which the Parliamentary Secretary gave, when I raised these two shocking cases with him. His reply was, "The best solution to their housing problem lies in buying a house of their own on their return to civil life."
The position must not be left there. The Army has a responsibility to these people. It must provide the home before the soldier leaves the Army. I am certain that recruitment is hindered by the fact that many of the older men in the Army say to the younger soldier who is thinking of signing on, "I warn you about signing on for twenty-one years, because there will be no home for you when you have finished and you will have great difficulty in fitting into civil life." I am certain that there are many young men who would sign on for much longer service in the Army but who are deterred by the story of the old sweat who has been in the Army for some time and who is having these difficulties. The Army must have a different approach to recruitment.
I will tell the Parliamentary Secretary what I should like to see. I should like to see Britain with the finest possible Army, with the soldiers living under the best conditions and receiving the best salaries, and with our saying to them, "We can guarantee you a home at the end of your twenty-one years' service". Why not? What is so terrible about that? It would be a good advertisement for the Army if we were able to say, "We are not concerned with you only while you are in the Army, but also when you leave. We do not just kick you out". We must look after the man who has spent many years in the Armed Forces.
I raised this with the War Office because I thought that I would get a more sympathetic reply than if I raised it with the Minister of Defence. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on the principle of my argument. I ask him to get his Department—and to do it soon—to prepare such a scheme and we will look at it. If money is needed I am sure that we shall find unanimity to provide it.
A number of cases have been brought to my attention where men who have given many years of service in the Armed Forces are now suffering great hardship. Local authorities cannot, or will not, help them when they return to civilian life, and they end up living in furnished rooms and paying exorbitant rates, as in the case I mentioned where the individual concerned pays 5 guineas a week rent. Others have large families and landlords will not accept them.
The situation is a disgrace to those who run our Services today. I hope that the answer from the hon. Gentleman will be friendly, and will give hope to the many people in the Army today who are worried about what will happen to them when they leave Her Majesty's Forces.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): My answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will be friendly but I doubt whether it will be satisfactory. We must accept, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who served with great distinction in the office which I now hold, before he became the leading spokesman for the Opposition on housing matters, will agree, that the housing of ex-Regulars must fall into the general pattern of our national housing policy.

Mr. Mellish: I disagree.

Mr. Fraser: I think that that must be so. I am sure that anyone with experience of the War Office realises that, although we can help by way of grants and pensions, the best we can do is to give advice and be of any help that we can through our resettlement services.
As regards general conditions, may I refer to the debate held only a few weeks ago. The number of houses to be built this year is over 300,000 and

in the debate which the hon. Gentleman had with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government it was made clear that housing starts this year are well up.
I think that it would be of benefit to go through some of the things we are endeavouring to do. First, the question of evictions. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that this was being done in a humane fashion. I personally sign the order for every eviction which takes place and it is inevitable, even though we are building large numbers of houses every year, that some young soldiers with families should be evicted. The time comes when, after a certain number of months, we must ask people to go and if they cannot do so we have to push them out. I assure the hon. Gentleman that these evictions are carried out in a humane fashion and we have to weigh very carefully the needs of the ex-Regular against those of the soldier coming forward.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks about local authorities do not have a countrywide application. It is true that in certain areas there is a grave housing shortage, especially in the London area, but in most cases we receive the full co-operation of local authorities. Since 1955 it has been the policy to give ex-Regulars parity with the local inhabitants provided that certain conditions, such as having a job and having local connections, are fulfilled. I am sure he would agree that the present system, whereby an ex-Service man has a fair deal in comparison with others on the waiting list, is the right one.
The hon. Member made mock of the housing pamphlet we have issued. I gravely disagree with him over this. Our housing advisory service is of considerable value. The hon. Member may have found bits of the pamphlet amusing, but he will find contained in it references to all the methods of obtaining a house. No one admits more than I do the importance of this for the ex-Service man. Whether the house is bought through a local authority, through a building society, by self-build methods, or through an insurance company, reference is made to it in the pamphlet in considerable detail.
The information service is available to the Regular soldier throughout his


career in the Army, and it is concentrated into two interviews which the soldier has with the resettlement board. One takes place about eighteen months before he is due to leave the Army and the final one three months or so before he leaves. The hon. Member may have greater experience of local government than I have, but I believe that the pamphlet supplies an immense amount of useful information. It concentrates the soldier's mind upon the sort of problems he will have to face.
The Royal Army Education Corps, which runs this resettlement advisory service, is even better briefed. If the hon. Member would like to see it I can show him a very valuable brief which I have with me, which contains a small report upon the Bermondsey Borough Council, saying how good it is at rehousing and giving the telephone number of the housing authority. It contains reports upon Stafford, Fulham and every other constituency and important major town, and goes into considerable detail in regard to the problems which will have to be faced by the soldier leaving the Army.
This is a great step forward from what we have been able to achieve before, because it tells the individual what his chances are. It tells him where to go, or where to aim at going. It also means that, through a branch of the War Office, hard cases are brought to the notice of local authorities. A man may have been killed, leaving a widow and children, and this branch has had considerable success, through the goodness of local authorities, in ensuring that such tragic cases are handled expeditiously. This bulletin and service together provide a great step forward.
So much for the advice we can give. I now turn to the means of following it up.

Mr. Mellish: Finance.

Mr. Fraser: I would point out that since April, 1959, the soldier who has served for twenty-two years is not too badly off. On leaving the Army he will receive a pension of about £114 a year, plus a terminal grant of £343. The hon. Member made some mock of the figures I gave in relation to buying a house, hut with his £300 the private soldier would be well on the way to paying the

necessary charges in order to raise an initial mortgage on a house worth £2,000.

Mr. Mellish: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might say that. We are dealing with a man coming into civilian life for the first time for many years. All the money he gets will be needed to set up a home, without taking into consideration the idea of buying a house. That is why the hon. Gentleman has had to secure evictions.

Mr. Fraser: This has nothing to do with evictions; it is absolutely unrelated to that question. I can show the hon. Member the details of the 90 cases of eviction. Many of them are bad tenants. In addition, the British Legion may make interest free loans—and I would like to thank the Legion for all that it is doing.
Further, if a man is in a difficult situation he can commute part of his pension. Therefore, it is not impossible for the advice to be followed by a private soldier coming out of the Army after twenty-two years' service. Of course, it is not very common for a soldier still to be a private after twenty-two years' service. A warrant officer Class I would get a pension of £243 a year and a terminal grant of £729.
Quite a lot of men serve for more than twenty-two years in the Army. It is not impossble to have a private who has served for 32 years, 34 or even one who has been in the Army for 37 years. He might have been a field marshal during that time, but has ended up as a private. He would get a pension of £239 a year and a terminal grant of £717 that is, a private soldier after thirty-four years' service. Going to the more likely rank of sergeant, a man, who is probably still under 50 years of age, would get a pension of £321 a year after thirty years' service and a terminal grant of £963.
I believe that for a man with twenty-two years' service and over all the advice about house purchase could well be accepted. There are the two cases, the particulars of which the hon. Gentleman has sent me. As far as the terminal grant is concerned, one of them would be getting about £550 and the other would be getting quite a considerable sum—something like £400, I think.
The main problem is not with the man with twenty-two years' service, but with


the man who leaves the Army after a shorter period of service. Some help is given when a man has been in the Army for more than twelve years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, no pension is paid to a solidier until he has done twenty-two years' service, unless, of course, he suffers an injury attributable to service, when a pension is naturally paid.
Terminal grants after twelve years' service have also gone up. After fifteen years' service a man will receive £250 and after twenty-one years' service there will be £570 available to him by way of gratuity when he leaves the Army.
There are other methods which we believe are of value. We believe that the self-build organisation is something which should be looked at. I am happy to be able to announce that the War Office has recently negotiated a scheme with the British Legion and with the National Federation of Housing Societies. It is an ingenious scheme. These self-build societies are scattered all over the country and the British Legion is providing a central information bureau through which a soldier can be put in touch with a self-build society.
I hope, too, that in the next few months we shall reorganise the resettlement pre-release schemes so that a man who wishes to join a self-build society will receive training in the building of a

home. That is a small point, but it is one of the things that we are thinking about.
All these things apply broadly, of course, to the other Services. I am glad to say that the leaflet on which the hon. Gentleman poured such scorn has had a very wide distribution in the other Services. I think that the Army has dope remarkably well in these various schemes and in the information and advice which it has been able to give. I think that I can claim that we have made good progress recently. The long-service soldier has been enabled through the increased terminal grants and gratuities to purchase a house. The 1959 Housing Act will, of course, help him here. Backing all this is a comprehensive information and advice service based on a system of personal interviews by officers who are really expert in these matters. This comes at a time, well before discharge, when the individual can freely and frankly discuss his problem and receive advice.
We cannot be complacent, and never can be, about what the hon. Gentleman so rightly calls an important and pressing matter, but I really believe that the Army can be proud of the success of the steps we have taken and are taking.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Five o'clock.